someoneyouknow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Posts
- 28,274
It should be obvious, but any time former president Obama wanted to do anything in Syria Republicans immediately poo pooed the idea. Even after Assad gassed anywhere from 300 to 1,700 of his own people, and Obama went to Congress to get authorization to strike, Republicans shot it down. Here are some of their comments.
Mitch McConnell: "A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration."
Paul Ryan: "I believe the President's proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. In fact, I fear it will make things worse."
Marco Rubio: "While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don't." He went on to say:
"I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The strike the administration wants us to approve I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S. military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be counterproductive."
Orrin Hatch: "What is clear is that launching a few missiles will do nothing to end Syria's civil war, and is neither a real strategy to stop the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria nor a guarantee that chemical weapons won't be used in the future by the Assad regime. That is not a plan for the region.
"That's why I continue to have strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria."
Jason Chaffetz: "no clear and present danger to the USA to justify going to war in Syria."
Ted Poe of Texas went one step further. Not only did he disapprove of action against Syria after it gassed, potentially, over 1,000 of its own people, he introduced a bill which would prohibit funding for any attack on Syria unless Congress approved it.
When asked why they were suddenly supporting action when only a few dozen people were killed and not when tens of hundreds were killed, all made excuses to the effect, "Things change."
Think of how many people would still be alive if they hadn't let partisan politics get in the way.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html
Mitch McConnell: "A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration."
Paul Ryan: "I believe the President's proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. In fact, I fear it will make things worse."
Marco Rubio: "While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don't." He went on to say:
"I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The strike the administration wants us to approve I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S. military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be counterproductive."
Orrin Hatch: "What is clear is that launching a few missiles will do nothing to end Syria's civil war, and is neither a real strategy to stop the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria nor a guarantee that chemical weapons won't be used in the future by the Assad regime. That is not a plan for the region.
"That's why I continue to have strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria."
Jason Chaffetz: "no clear and present danger to the USA to justify going to war in Syria."
Ted Poe of Texas went one step further. Not only did he disapprove of action against Syria after it gassed, potentially, over 1,000 of its own people, he introduced a bill which would prohibit funding for any attack on Syria unless Congress approved it.
When asked why they were suddenly supporting action when only a few dozen people were killed and not when tens of hundreds were killed, all made excuses to the effect, "Things change."
Think of how many people would still be alive if they hadn't let partisan politics get in the way.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/kfile-top-republicans-syria-trump/index.html
