Republicans Should Unanimously Support Air Strikes Against Syria

Opponents want you to think nobody is innocent in the Syrian Civil War, that it's just a dictator and various terrorist groups killing one another.  Somehow, that means the 400+ children killed by chemical weapons deserved to die horrible deaths?  Nobody deserves to die this way, not in Syria or anywhere else.

Opponents want you to think nobody is innocent in the Syrian Civil War, that it’s just a dictator and various terrorist groups killing one another. Somehow, that means the 400+ children killed by chemical weapons deserved to die horrible deaths? Nobody deserves to die this way, not in Syria or anywhere else.

I apologize for not writing on this sooner.  I know a lot of you come to KTracy.com for my unique insight and knowledge on foreign policy matters and when the President decides he wants to bomb the crap out of a country, but wants Congressional approval first, you want to learn about it from me.  You’re too kind to this terrible blogger.

Anyway, I’m all in favor of using limited air strikes against the Assad regime’s chemical and biological weapons.  The pretext to the War in Iraq was that Saddam’s WMDs could end up in the hands of terrorists.  The only problem is that the WMDs weren’t there… some suggested the weapons were smuggled into Syria.  I never really cared for that explanation.  The truth of the matter was that we were going to Iraq to spread democracy in the heart of the middle east… essentially to initiate the Arab Spring.

More than 10 years after we began the “Shock and Awe” that began the Iraq War, there’s a regime with WMDs and the proven will to use them against political enemies.  Unlike Saddam Hussein however, Bashar Assad has a much more colorful history with supporting terrorism, using Hezbollah to order assassinations, fight wars, and kill thousands of innocent people in terrorist attacks in Israel and Lebanon.

10 years ago, virtually every Republican in Congress voted for the Iraq War and they were joined by a large number of Democrats.

So the fact that some members of the Republican caucus in Congress are starting to behave like Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Al Gore to the idea of limited air strikes suggests one of two things.  Either politics are involved now that we have a divisive Democrat president or our principles have changed.

Should the United States stand up to the proliferation and use of chemical weapons when the United Nations won’t enforce the treaties that 98% of the world agreed to?  Or should we go backwards 90 years and accept that chemical and biological weapons will be used in the 21st century, likely against American troops and civilians?

This is pretty clear cut.  Just because Russia and China have made the UN Security Council an exercise of obstruction of justice doesn’t mean that war criminals should go unpunished.  Because quite frankly, it sends the wrong signal to any regime that would dare to use WMDs.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Republicans Should Unanimously Support Air Strikes Against Syria, 5.0 out of 5 based on 3 ratings

Kevin Tracy

Kevin Tracy is an Air Force veteran, terrorism/counterterrorism expert, and jack of all trades. KTracy's day job is designing electrical systems for new fossil power plants and environmental solutions. On the side, he keeps a blog, fundraises for political candidates and the St. Baldrick's Foundation, writes and illustrates comic books, and studies foreign affairs in depth.

This entry was posted in International, Politics on by .

About Kevin Tracy

Kevin Tracy is an Air Force veteran, terrorism/counterterrorism expert, and jack of all trades. KTracy's day job is designing electrical systems for new fossil power plants and environmental solutions. On the side, he keeps a blog, fundraises for political candidates and the St. Baldrick's Foundation, writes and illustrates comic books, and studies foreign affairs in depth.

18 thoughts on “Republicans Should Unanimously Support Air Strikes Against Syria

  1. Valarie

    I respectfully disagree. I don’t think we belong involved in a civil war with people that hate us.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
    1. Kevin Tracy Post author

      That’s why it’s important that this remain a limited scope to punish a regime for its use of chemical weapons. This civil war is in a stalemate because the opposition is subdivided into so many small groups with extremely different interests, including interests that are actively opposed to the United States and our people. Others would actively work for a friendly relationship between the United States and the Europe. Others, like the 400+ children who were killed by the chemical weapon attack, really have no influence on US interests (yet) or their country’s civil war. The problem is that differentiating between them is impossible, so you’re right – we shouldn’t get involved in their civil war.

      This proposed strike isn’t about the Syrian civil war, though. It’s about upholding international laws and treaties about the use of WMDs. It shouldn’t matter whether Assad’s use of chemical weapons targeted his own people in a civil war, against an enemy like Israel’s military, or an ethnic minority as was the case in Iraq in the 90s. People like Assad who use these weapons must be punished, lest other regimes be tempted to use them to put down uprisings after seeing the lack of consequences.

      Further, now that Assad has used chemical weapons in a wide scale attack once, we have no reason to believe he won’t resort to this tactic every time he’s in trouble in the future. The only ways to contain the threat are through regime change or destroying Assad’s WMD facilities.

      Unless you’re from France, in which case you write a stern letter asking Assad to promise not to do it again… you might even say please.

      Unfortunately, this time that Obama has given the Congress to debate the air strikes has also given Assad’s forces ample time to relocate their weapon caches, so even the air strikes won’t be as effective as they would have been if Obama followed the lead of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and immediate taken action on actionable, time-sensitive intelligence. In other words, his political posturing is going to result in US Air Force and Navy pilots and aircrews risking their lives to accomplish that much less.

      Thanks for the comment by the way! We have to get together sometime when I’m not working like a dog.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      Reply
  2. Jeff Kostro

    Couldn’t disagree more. There hasn’t been proof that Syria launched the chemical weapons, there is actually quite a bit of evidence that the “Rebels”, our allies there, or as the rest of the world calls them, Al Qaeda, did. This smacks of a False Flag Operation if anything ever has. Chemical weapons are bad, but perching us on the brink of WWIII is worse. Don’t kid yourself Kevin, this has nothing to do with Humanitarianism, this is all about OIL, and the fact that we have been itching to scrap with Iran for years. You do realize that Iran and Syria have a mutual defense treaty correct? There have been abominations and genocide happening in Africa for years, but No Oil there, so Obama ignores those atrocities. I for one am ready to stay out of Syria since BOTH sides of this civil war are abhorrent! You did see the video of the Rebel cutting open the chest of a dead Russian soldier, cutting his heart out, and eating it raw right? These are the terrorists you want us to cozy up with? You, your friends, and Brothers in Arms fought Al Qaeda, were wounded, and killed. I think it is spitting in every one of those veterans faces, and the families of the soldiers that lost their lives, to Ally with Al Qaeda in Syria.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=426988294088321&set=a.264133233707162.62109.264065343713951&type=1&relevant_count=1

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
    1. Kevin Tracy Post author

      As I said to Valarie, this isn’t about Syria’s civil war, it’s about the use of chemical weapons and upholding international law and human standards to ensure other regimes know that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated under any circumstance.

      Air strikes against the Assad regime’s WMDs are not going to have anything to do with oil. I hate how everyone always says it’s about oil. Because some fathead makes a movie connecting oil pipelines, the war on terrorism and how we were supposedly stealing all of this oil from Iraq (none of which made its way back to the United States, by the way), people are convinced that the world revolves around oil.

      Facts:
      1. Syria produces a very modest amount of oil and natural gas. What little oil they export goes entirely to countries that have condemned the Assad regime but have refused to step in. If it was about oil, they would be screaming bloody murder about the economic sanctions or scrambling air power to end this conflict and bring stability back to their energy markets.

      2. A pipeline that runs through Syria serves as a natural gas (not oil) pipeline from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq to Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan. The possibility exists that the pipeline can one day be extended through Turkey and into Europe, but it was a long way off before the civil war and was more likely to happen under Assad than under any Islamist regime that might replace him. Coincidentally, the countries that receive natural gas from Syria have condemned the actions of Assad and have helped place sanctions against his regime.

      3. If this was about oil, Russia would be siding with the rebels to make the war as devastating and widespread as possible for the energy infrastructure since this limits the oil transit routes to Europe, making Europe more dependent on Russian oil, allowing Russia to increase their prices to account for the increased demand. (The Assad-Russian alliance has more to do with cold war posturing and military contracts than oil) Instead, Russia is trying to help Assad end the conflict.

      4. Riding on the back of fact 3, if this was about oil, the United States still wouldn’t do this because there is a risk that Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran will try disrupting oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and the Panama Canal… again making the world more reliant on Russian oil imports and weakening the position of important regional US oil allies on the Arabian peninsula and risking further unrest.

      5. There’s actually quite a bit of oil in Africa. http://www.africaoilcorp.com/s/home.asp

      Jeff, I have a ton of respect for you, but please give up the Michael Moore talking points. On a side note, where did you see that the dead soldier was Russian? I haven’t heard that anywhere.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      Reply
  3. Michael T. Stulac

    I thought it stupid whenever Clinton would look at the calendar, say “Geez, it’s been a while since we bounced rubble,” then have the Air Force strafe Baghdad with a bombing run to remind Saddam who’s boss. Then after the Cole, we hit an Al Qaeda camp that was really an aspirin plant, and dropped some ordnance on Serbia for good measure. It’s not much more than the French attacker in Monty Python’s Holy Grail farting in your general direction, or a gang banger shooting up a house to make a point no matter whether the intended target was home or if the place was empty. Except that instead of it being the sad loss of civilians incurred while hitting a military target, it’s more of a criminal negligence firing an arrow in the air, where it lands I do not care.

    Now we’re set to bomb something, somewhere
    1) before we even determine which side let it rip
    2) because no matter if we have interests at hand, or the nation’s defense at risk, we must spend money we don’t have expending $2M missiles for the vague notion that Something Must Be Done, confusing motion with progress, ala the rocking horse.
    3) hence the only ones directly hurt will be civilians, with jihadists as collateral damage, instead of the other way around
    4) in spite of not even coming close to knowing how many were casualties. Doctors without Borders, from what I gather an impartial group at the site, pegged the number around 540, and the US says it’s around 1500 – if you can’t even come close on the number, what is known for sure? was it even an intentional attack, or like the bombing of a US chemical weapon laden ship by the Germans off of Italy in WW II, a disaster or horrendous foul-up not intended by the releaser?

    Further, now that Assad has used chemical weapons in a wide scale attack once, we have no reason to believe he won’t resort to this tactic every time he’s in trouble in the future. Since no one to my knowledge has extended safe harbor for the guy to escape with enough booty to live the rest of his life well, he *is* fighting for his life, so he will do what he needs to do to survive one more day, if he takes everyone with him. Your bombs will not encourage him to, in effect, commit suicide. No man is more dangerous that one who has nothing to lose. If he thinks he can do better in exile, he’d jet. Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia, the Shah on his yacht, Napoleon on islands, various Nazi officials in South America, there’s a long precedent of sending the jerk into exile to get him out of the way so you can get to rebuilding a lot quicker and less damaging than to fight him to the death.

    Either politics are involved now that we have a divisive Democrat president or our principles have changed. It’s called life experience. One can argue that in 2003, we thought we’d throw out a hated dictator, install a secular republic, and like the Italians and Germans in 1945, the populace will relax and be thankful. We nursed Japan from emperor worship to the elected Diet, surely Western ideals can take root in a Muslim land, like it did in Turkey. Oops. Given our recent experience, where even if we go in with the best of intentions, we’re told, “this is why the world hates you,” we’re going to be a lot more tentative the next time. Never mind that in 2003, the USA got the UN and a broad, vast coalition to OK hostilities, and even Russia didn’t blanche much, while the only people Obama can rally to support an attack are the people who are anti-war when a non-Democrat is involved.

    In 1991 when US forces were closing in on Baghdad, the USSR said “don’t go in” and we didn’t, and we brought half a million men to a halt. In 2013, Russia’s saying “leave our guy in peace” and we’re set to attack with no one on our side. Putin may have given Assad the anti-aircraft guns and missiles to take out a few of our aircraft, and sink a carrier to the bottom of the sea. It’s a civil war between gog and maggog. We didn’t bomb Franco when Guernica got lit up. Let Russia deal with this mess.

    You can tell when it’s sunset in a society when such small men cast such long shadows.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
    1. R. Battel

      When you start targeting innocent people with inhumane weapons, it’s clearly time to be reminded who the boss is. I think the disconnect is that guys like Tracy and I come from a world where we know full damn well what the capabilities of not only our men and women in uniform, but also our intelligence assets as well. Clearly, we have a lot of faith in them to get a job done.

      On the other hand, you come from a world read to you from New York Times and Reason Magazine headlines about how horrible and incompetent the troops are and inept our intelligence field is. Don’t deny it. Your arrogance gives you away.

      That Sudanese “asprin factory” you’re talking about – it’s name was actually Al-Shifa – was hit because it was producing VX nerve agent, which was corroborated by foreign intelligence sources, Sudanese sources, and clandestine soil samples.

      Plus, I’m not sure where you got the impression that the occupation of Japan went wonderfully. It took 30+ years, most of them not so pleasant, to build the relationship we have with Japan now. You have this notion that because someone hates us now that not only are they always going to hate us, but everyone that belongs to their religion hates us too. That’s bullshit. I know it’s really easy just go say that Muslims hate us, but it’s false. A lot of Syrians wanted our help before al-Qaida ever got involved. Remember, this civil war started as a protest for basic civil rights in Syria. Those moderate, secular ideals are still there among some of the rebels. The fact that they’re fighting against the same enemy as al-Qaida only means that the overthrow of Assad is in their common interest. Just as what happened in Egypt, secular protesters rallied with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood took over, they began clamping down on religious and social liberties, and the people rose up again to topple the Morsi regime. The only difference is that the Egyptian military had the power to stand up to Egypt’s leaders. Assad has more power over his military, something that Baath leaders do very well.

      The fact that Assad is cornered with no place to run essentially would mean that we have to take care of these weapons because he will use them again and in the near future. Though – I think you realize that Tracy was arguing that if Assad survived this, his confidence in using WMDs in the future would be pretty strong since he got away with it once. This is most directly a problem for both Israel and Lebanon, but indirectly a threat to the rest of the world because Assad’s relationship with Hezbollah creates an increased probability for the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons to a terrorist organization. That’s all the more reason to do it now, before waiting for Congress to vote on whether an Airman can fart in Syrian airspace.

      I suspect Russia would take Assad in if it really came down to it, so I think he’s fighting to retake power rather than mere survival. I doubt the US will actually target Assad in the airstrikes. That seems to go against the general strategy of targeting WMDs and letting the civil war continue its progression.

      Finally, as horribly cliche as it sounds – if you change your behavior because of what terrorists funded by Iran and Syria did to us in Iraq, then you’re giving them victory. Iran and Syria didn’t send terrorists and explosives simply to spill American blood, they did it to make us more timid in our foreign policy – to keep us away. To tell us that they make up their own rules and we’re not going to have a say in it. You’re saying the terrorists won.

      I’m saying let’s show them who the boss is.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      Reply
  4. Jeff Kostro

    Kevin, I have tons of respect for you as well, but the fact is this is NOT the first chemical attack in Syria. And the UN has already linked the ones in the past to the Rebels, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505, So WHY should we believe this time it was the Syrian government? Obama wants to twist this to fit his AGENDA, which is to get at IRAN, like I stated earlier has a Mutual Defense Treaty with Syria. So, attack one, you are attacking the other. The UN debunked Obama’s claim that Iran was creating nuclear weapons, so this is the next opportunity. I misspoke earlier as well, I shouldn’t have wrote “Russian soldier” but do you really feel comfortable getting into bed with people that EAT there enemy, and has used chemical weapons without care of the civilian population? The evidence is there AGAINST the rebels. But Obama just wants us to trust him that THIS TIME it was the government. And we are not just running in, dropping some bombs, and leaving with a “I hope you naughty kids learned your lesson.” We are arming the Al Qaeda rebels, assisting them financially, and with weapons. And I know you are nowhere nearly slow enough to believe we can fire those missiles without any payback? Watch General Wesley Clark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ, Kevin you want me to stop sounding like Michael Moore, well I want you to stop sounding like an Obama supporter, that just drank the Kool-Aid and doesn’t question anything that sorry excuse for a President does.

    PS I did notice how you skipped over the slap in the face it is to every serviceman, veteran, and people that paid the ultimate price for our freedom, by getting into bed with Al Qaeda in Syria.

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/06/16/Russia-Britian-remain-split-on-Syrian-conflict-.html

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
    1. R. Battel

      From one of Tracy’s earlier comments:

      Unfortunately, this time that Obama has given the Congress to debate the air strikes has also given Assad’s forces ample time to relocate their weapon caches, so even the air strikes won’t be as effective as they would have been if Obama followed the lead of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and immediate taken action on actionable, time-sensitive intelligence. In other words, his political posturing is going to result in US Air Force and Navy pilots and aircrews risking their lives to accomplish that much less.

      Sounds like he’s being plenty critical of the President for his decision to put politics before our national interests. Also from that comment:

      The problem is that differentiating between them is impossible, so you’re right – we shouldn’t get involved in their civil war.

      This proposed strike isn’t about the Syrian civil war, though. It’s about upholding international laws and treaties about the use of WMDs. It shouldn’t matter whether Assad’s use of chemical weapons targeted his own people in a civil war, against an enemy like Israel’s military, or an ethnic minority as was the case in Iraq in the 90s. People like Assad who use these weapons must be punished, lest other regimes be tempted to use them to put down uprisings after seeing the lack of consequences.

      The intelligence game really isn’t hard to understand. You hear something, you weigh the reliability of your source, you find other sources, you get more information, and if there’s anything to it, eventually a pretty clear picture starts to develop. It involves THOUSANDS of agents, analysts, technicians, and linguists gathering information. I know you want to believe in your little childish conspiracy theories about how Obama (or Bush before him) is trying to ruin this country, but it’s not just wrong – it’s stupid.

      This isn’t a game of politics or who can make the biggest tin foil hat. It’s national security. Guys like us don’t want the next generation of American soldiers to be gassed by every dictator who gets nervous. Chemical warfare is a lot scarier than many of you seem to understand. I quite frankly find the use of chemical weapons more abhorrent than a terrorist eating the heart of a dead soldier in an adolescent attempt at propaganda.

      If you’re going to continue playing childish games, questioning the loyalties of veterans like Tracy and myself who believed in what we were doing in Iraq, and continue to believe in the principles that our men and women laid their lives down for over there, then you’re really not worthy of being listened to in my book. God help us all if other people find your rhetoric worthy of their attention.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      Reply
  5. Jeff Kostro

    Obama legally has to go to Congress since there is no immanent threat to the US. The Constitution does NOT give the President that power. I was commenting on how I was surprised that for once Kevin was backing Obama, and I was against him. It’s a role reversal, although I have come to realize that he was just about the worst thing to happen to out country, and am ashamed that I ever fell for his lies. And Mr. Battel, I never questioned anyone’s loyalties, especially yours, since I have never made your acquaintance. But the fact is, so far the UN has shown the only chemical weapons used in Syria to date has been by the rebels. I personally do not find Obama reliable, and certainly do not trust him. So, go ahead and name call. But this is a UN matter NOT something the US should “go it alone” on. I disagree with you, but will not lower myself to that level of childishness. If it is proven that Syria used chemical warfare, allow the UN to take the proper steps, decide if military action is called for, and bring war crime charges against those who deserve them. You keep saying this is about international laws and treaties, well let the international community decide how to handle this. The US is NOT the world’s police force, and we do not get to decide ourselves on this one, especially when the US is guilty of using chemical warfare in Iraq. And yes Kevin, I am eccentric, I have been my whole life. I’ll consider that a compliment

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
  6. Jeff Kostro

    “The intelligence game really isn’t hard to understand. You hear something, you weigh the reliability of your source, you find other sources, you get more information, and if there’s anything to it, eventually a pretty clear picture starts to develop. It involves THOUSANDS of agents, analysts, technicians, and linguists gathering information”…it’s a shame that many Thousands of agents dropped the ball on the whole Iraq, weapons of mass destruction thing. Sorry if I don’t walk the line this time, but I’ll wait for the UN, because Obama has already proven untrustworthy.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
  7. Michael T. Stulac

    .We even went to the U.N for some semblance of a coalition when the communists surged over the 38th Parallel into South Korea in 1950, and if there was a time of war lust to kill commies first and ask questions later, it was in 1950. If we go to the Security Council, it forces the Chinese and Russians to agree with us that a chemical attack is bad and whoever did it should be hunted down like a world-wide pariah by all sides as an example to any tin horn dictator. And we should get some of the surrounding rich boys in the region to foot the bill for this, like we did in Desert Storm.

    Set a goal with parameters. Don’t limit the tactics, limit the scope of the mission. No mission creep or goal shifting. We are the big dog, they are the tramps. Besides, they’re hemmed in and going nowhere, and no one will remember a year from now that we took 2 weeks instead of one to make it happen. Measure twice, cut once, carpenter. But first find out who is the culprit, and if it was an attack. As rag-tag as rebels are, someone might’ve dropped a drum on the corner and popped off the lid.

    We went into that bad neighborhood before, and Reagan had to explain why 241 American Marines weren’t coming home. That was a nebulous humanitarian mission, too, keeping warring sides in Beirut from clashing once Israel pulled out after its victory over the PLO which became an unmanageable insurgency after they declared Mission Accomplished (sound familiar?).

    We passed the bill to find out what was in it, and we rushed into war when a boat was or was not attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. God help us if we hit a chemical det, or they can stack a line of dead kids from a Tomahawk attack.

    What’s wrong with getting Assad a safe harbor and out of power, working with Russia to set up a secular coalition amenable to both Putin and the US, recovering and destroying chemical stores so Hezbollah and al Qaeda don’t get them. Mr. Tracy can say if any of this is practical.

    I fail to understand how asking for care in how we approach lethal means makes me disloyal or even opposed to Mr. Tracy’s expertise, or says what magazines or papers I read.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    Reply
    1. Nancy Ellis

      I think KTracy is right, especially when he says the longer this takes – the worse its going to get. If we launched cruise missile and air strikes as soon as we learned where the chemical weapons were, the collateral damage woudl have been minimal. However, like the cowards they are, they’re stockpiling civilians on top of their caches and cameras a few feet away so they can get the images of the carnage out. If Obama was half the leader… no… half the man that Bush was, this would already be over. Would there be political fallout? Maybe. But a leader needs do what he thinks is right and worry about the politics later. And since when do Republicans trust the United Nations? Save your breath. You started supporting the UN before the US when it became politically convenient. You’re no better than Obama.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      Reply
      1. Michael T. Stulac

        And since when do Republicans trust the United Nations? Save your breath. You started supporting the UN before the US when it became politically convenient. You’re no better than Obama.

        With all due respect, m’lady, every president in the last 24 years has seen his mission as right and just enough to commit with a good chunk of the world in support, even when our country was attacked. Here’s a synopsis:

        Well, let’s start with GHW Bush, who got a U.N. sanctioned multi-nation coalition to drive Iraq from Kuwait, as well as getting gulf states to underwrite the cost of the war. Then we were part of the disastrous U.N. mission to feed Somalia, begun under GHW and continued under Wild Bill. Then there’s the U.N.’s Iraqi Sanction period, which stretched 1990-2003, over one D and two GOP presidents. Democrat Clinton hooked up with NATO to go into Kosovo (where we still have troops to this day), and his one gleaming success (welfare reform being #2) was staying the heck out of Somalia, considering the Somalia morass. He also went under a U.N. resolution to reinstate Aristide in Haiti, avoiding troop commitment at the 11th hour. W Bush at least had wide international cooperation in the Afghan War’s first few years, same as for the Iraq War.

        The last three two term presidents didn’t trust the U.N. (show me in my comments where I said Republicans do), and I never support the U.N. over the U.S. (show me in what I wrote that I do), but GOP’s and D’s alike saw the fig leaf of U.N./NATO backing as shut-up juice for the U.S.’s enemies who accuse us of being the world’s bully, off on our own tangent with no regard for world opinion. Heck, everything we did since the end of the Cold War has been in hand with the world body’s involvement.

        Please attack any and all of my opinions at will, since I have no emotional attachment to them, and am willing to change them as new and better knowledge comes. But please don’t say I’m no better than Obama, or imply that what I say is just partisan game. I’ll speak against poker hand McCain, Boehner, Graham and other Republicans as freely as Kerry and Obama. As far as Republicans invoking the U.N. starting with last week, I think I just fisked that to death. All I want is to see careful treading where American life is concerned instead of head rushes full speed ahead, and I’m the devil.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        Reply
        1. Tom5

          I think its obvious that you’re willing to back the UN for as long as they might give you a different answer than the entire US intelligence community, and there are a lot of agencies that have all reached the same conclusion.

          Besides this isn’t even a war. It’s a short term engagement with the limited scope of enforcing treaties banning the use and proliferation of chemical weapons… treaties that the US Congress already approved.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          Reply

Leave a Reply