The tea party has become the peace party. Why are so many people quoting and
listening to Putin? Do we need a military if we adopt the Senator's
Good comment David. I too supported the Iraq war. But, I had not
been given all of the information at the time.I was told that there
was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD.I was told that he was trying to obtain
uranium for nuclear capabilities.I was told that the smoking gun may turn
into a mushroom cloud if we did not go.I was told that the war would be
paid for by Iraqi Oil.I was NOT told that there WAS great doubt
about WMD.Or that the uranium claim was in dispute.The
information given to the American people was designed to garner support for war
while the Administration knew the questionable nature if some of the info.That war was engineered by the war hungry neocons. They created urgency
when none existed.
There seems to be hypocrites on both sides of this board. Obama supporters are
on board for US military action in Syria for the same reasons that Bush led us
to war in Iraq. And yet Obama supporters were generally opposed to Bush and the
Iraq War. On the other side, Republicans generally supported the
Iraq war & Bush but are opposed to intervention in Syria for the same
reasons spelled out by Democrats in 2003. I supported the Iraq War,
as did nearly all world leaders, as did nearly all intelligence groups, as did a
majority of Congress (including Democrats). However, I feel now that the Iraq
War was a mistake. We should learn our lessons from it: That our intelligence
is inadequate; that supporting someone in that region ends up hurting us years
or decades later; that getting directly involved in a civil ward can be
catastrophic; that we are already bankrupt as a country; that lobbing a few
shells won't change anything and could only embolden Assad...Everything
seems to point against military intervention.Looking back I would
not have supported war in Iraq. It was a mistake. Looking forward, I
don't support military action in Syria.
For me, Lee surrendered his credibility long ago.
@Elcapitan - let me summerize, No, I am not alarmed, no I am not watching the
wrong channel because I am not watching any of them... not Fox... not MSNBC.
No, the America I live in hasn't fundementally changed. Yes, my 401K and
IRA's have doubled since 2008, and yes, my home value is up 27 percent. I
am fully employed in the energy business, and no, no one has prevented me from
practicing my religion, and my collection of guns is just fine - though 22
shells are still hard to find.So no... I am not worried about Obama,
and I am was not worried about Bush. My freedoms are in tact, and so am i.Your mileage may vary.
Dangerous? What could possibly go wrong?*Dropping bombs in the
middle of a civil war where both sides hate you is always a safe bet*Not
having a clear objective is the best way to go ...keeps them guessing as to what
you are up to*Not having an exit strategy if things go south means the
less you have to plan for and you can always blame members of congress since
they authorized it*Iran has rational leaders who we can trust will keep
level heads regardless of what we do*It is easy to fight a limited war.
Wars always go as planned and rarely spread. *The US has clear national
interests involved here such as...um...give me a minute... ok I'm sure we
have some because our president said we did.*It is better to not have any
other nations helping you because there is less to coordinate"What - me worry?" (Alfred E Newman) "Stupid is as stupid
does" (Forest Gump) "Fools go where angels fear to tread" (unknown)
It is so painful to listen to rightwing knuckleheads hypocrisy on foreign
intervention. The US still lacks any credibility regarding foreign intervention
and will probably take another decade or two to completely undue the damage done
by the Bush Administration.
"So... does the DNC being silent when their leadership does the same thing
they complained bitterly about Bush doing NOT "unseemly" and NOT
"cheap partisanship"??"I dont see a huge consensus among
the Dems about the need/desire to go to war. Even on this board, so, the
comment is misplaced.In 2002, 60% of dems voted against the Iraq
war. 3% of the GOP did.While I expect that many dems will support
the president (cause, unfortunately thats what parties do) I predict that there
will be significant democratic opposition.At least I hope so...
@ LDSLIBERAL.....Yes I see it!so what you are saying is:Bush/Romney and a dead Saddam Hussein= BadObama Hussein/Clinton
and 4 dead Americans in Benghazi= GoodGotcha!
Oh, c'mon, Lee doesn't have a clue what to do, he's just waiting
for the President to decide on a course of action so he can oppose it. He knows
he won't get any face time on fox news Sunday mornings if he agrees with
the White House. Oh well, at least he got out of making those pesky
Either way, I think it's hysterical to see Obama go from a "no war at
any cost" critic of George W. to a President who now owns two wars.Obama is really just a puppet with no skills who is pretending to not realize
that America is no better off 6 years into his Presidency.Barack
Hussein Obama is the worst "over-hyped" President in our history.
GW Bush and Mitt Romney threatens attacks against Syria = Good.Obama
threatens attacks against Syria = Bad.See ANY hypocrisy with
yourselves - Republicans?
A strike against Syria would not only be dangerous, but could be aiding the
enemy. Russia has submitted a 100 page scientific analysis to the U.N. which
proves the WMD gas came from the insurgents (including Al Quaeda). We would be
aiding Al Quaeda by bombing Syria's military installations. Remember, 7
of the 9 groups fighting the Assad regime are associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood, which is the organization in Egypt which destroyed 60 Coptic
Christian churches and killed hundreds of Christians.The Obama
administration was on the wrong (anti-American and Caliphate promoting) side in
Libya and Egypt. Making the same mistake for the third time will cause many
good soldiers, who pledged to support the Constitution, to leave the military,
and question the President's motives and loyalty.
Esquire9:52 a.m.RE "For the GOP to whine after their
leadership in recent years is beyond unseemly. It is hypocritical and smacks of
nothing but cheap partisanship over our national and international interests and
treaties".So... does the DNC being silent when their leadership
does the same thing they complained bitterly about Bush doing NOT
"unseemly" and NOT "cheap partisanship"??I would
HOPE the DNC learned something from all the criticism they heaped upon
Bush/Cheney. But they don't seem to have learned anything.
Well duuuuhhh... lets see, bombs (dangerous), unstable tyrants willing to kill
his own people (dangerous), International media that loves to criticize America
every time we act, and radical Muslim groups that want nothing more than to drag
the USA into these type of conflicts... how could this POSSIBLY go wrong??
@Utah Blue Devil..Meanwhile the anti-Obama crowd just keeps on with their
complaints, with no solutions offered.solutions to Obama's
mistakes are difficult and too numerous to handle. You may be watching the wrong
news channels. He is making headway into "fundamentally changing
America". Have you not noticed. Are you not alarmed?
Wow, this thread is full of political mindsets and misguided comments about Lee
in general.Look out folks, the middle east is a bomb keg that will
eventually blow. You will face reality if you are alive at that time. It will
happen and Mike Lee knows what will happen and will not be pretty. I am for
staying clear of this Muslim conflict."3 And in that day will I
make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves
with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered
together against it."I prefer to keep away from evil politics
and conflict. Obama was raised a Muslim and you know the saying.....why did we
vote him into office for Heavens Sake.
To "Esquire" according to the Russian government it was the Rebels that
used the chemical weapons. See "Russia says it's compiled 100-page
report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack" in McClatchy.We don't even know for sure who has used the chemical weapons.You were highly critical of Bush for going into Iraq based on bad
information, why do you want to go into Syria with even sketchier information?
EDMExactly.In Dec., nearly 40% of the House was for some type of
intervention.In Sept. 18% of the House is for some type of
intervention.The repubs in the House always move in concert in opposition
to the POTUS.Brave Sir RobinEvery mike lee moment is like manna from
heaven for comedy central.
So besides voting over 50 times to repeal Obamacare what does Mikey do?Seems it would be nothing but to say the opposite of what ever Obama says,
real statesman there.and the hypocrisy of the conservative posters
here know no bounds.I too am skeptical if doing anything in Syria
will help, but I was also unpatrotic and told so, when I questioned Butch and
Cheneys repeated and often told lies about Iraq.@Worf when can we
afford those 2, when a republican is starting wars?
And letting the Syrian government keep using chemical weapons is dangerous, not
just for the Syrian people, but for neighboring countries, and eventually by
other bad actors who will see that no one will ever stand up to them. I hate
the idea of intervention, especially as the invasion of Iraq cost a trillion
dollars and handed Iraq over to Iran, but we can strike a blow without a long
term commitment. Frankly, it worked in Libya, and some message has to be
delivered to the Syrian government. For the GOP to whine after their leadership
in recent years is beyond unseemly. It is hypocritical and smacks of nothing
but cheap partisanship over our national and international interests and
Great headline. "Missile strikes may be dangerous."As
opposed to those missile strikes that are safe....
EDM,yep.No mention in the article of the additional Russian
naval vessels dispatched to the Mediterranean as a result of BO's sabre
rattling. A misstep here inflames the entire region and beyond. We cannot
afford such a conflagration with our incompetent apologizer-in-chief
Does anyone believe that Lee would not readily support force if it were a
Republican president calling for the same thing?
This is a byproduct of history.We don't trust our leaders to tell the
truth.Further, we are proposing to inject ourselves into a civil war among
Muslims. That's never a good idea.Despite our efforts in Iraq
(removing Saddam, rebuilding their infrastructure, protecting their new
government) they have not embraced democracy.Then there's that pesky
question about an exit strategy...
"We can't afford the lives, and money.Why did the people of
America elect this guy?"Worf, Did you say the same thing in
Thank you Senator Lee.Keep questioning ALL the executive orders that
overstep the bounds set on the President by the Constitution. This is not a
Woef.... your statements are so hypocritical... its hard to understand the
monumental flip flop here. Why were lives worth loosing in Iraq, a country
that never threatened Israel, or even really us, and yet Syria who has been
pushing covert wars in Lebanon and threatening directly Israel - these country
is not worth the same sacrifice.Not to be misunderstood - if Lee is
really being introspective rather than playing silly partisan games.... then
good for him. We have made plenty of mistakes in the reagin. We picked the
wrong side in the Iranian revolution - which still haunts us. We armed what
would become the Taliban, because we wanted to stick it to the Russians. We
armed Iraq in their war against Iran. We have a long history of unintended
consequences.So any real thoughtfulness is great. All options are
bad here, and inaction is not a real option either. So I applaud his
thoughtfulness - if that is really what it is.Meanwhile the
anti-Obama crowd just keeps on with their complaints, with no solutions offered.
We can't afford the lives, and money.Why did the people of
America elect this guy?