#1 McCain Says Congress Blocking Strike on Syria ‘Would Be Catastrophic’09-02-2013, 11:30 PM
Sep. 2, 2013 4:34pm Liz Klimas
Story by the Associated Press/Curated by Liz Klimas
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two Republican foreign policy hawks said Monday that President Barack Obama needs to make a strong case for attacking Bashar Assad’s Syria if he wants to win congressional backing.
At the same time, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said it would be a mistake for Congress to reject Obama’s request.
The kings army must now fight for the honor of their king, the court jesters say it is so.The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
09-03-2013, 12:22 AM
They should put those pointy little hats with bells on both McCainn and Graham. Or maybe they should sit them in the corner with dunce hats on.
Interesting that the two RINO'S are the only ones defending the bumbler in chief.
" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."
"A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"
Crocodiles are easy. They try to kill & eat you. People are harder. Sometimes they pretend to be your friend first.” Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter
09-03-2013, 01:07 AM
Seems McCain is a tad jealous about how close Boehner and 0bama are. And Gramnasty, well, wherever McVain goes Miss Lindsey is sure to follow.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
09-03-2013, 05:19 AMPresident Barack Obama opened up about his relationship with former opponent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday during an interview airing on NBC's "The Tonight Show."
Obama told host Jay Leno that he praises his 2008 presidential rival for speaking his mind, acknowledging the growing "bromance" between them.
“That’s how a classic romantic comedy goes. Initially you’re not getting along and then you keep bumping into each other," POTUS joked, according to a pool report
Tough-talking Sen. John McCain accused President Obama of contemplating half-measures in formulating U.S. strategy for military action in Syria.
McCain (R-Ariz.) went on “The Tonight Show” Friday to talk about the simmering tensions in the Middle East and to address the plans being made by the president, who McCain ran against — and lost to — in 2008.
Not surprisingly, McCain criticized the president and then outlined his own plan — if he were the Commander-in-Chief.
It's a dog and pony show.
09-03-2013, 09:02 AM
Where was this "we must act now" mentality when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
Or when we had solid evidence of his WMD program back in 2002?In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
09-03-2013, 09:37 AM
Give McCain credit where it is due. He always supported action on behalf of the rebels, and he's consistent, even if we disagree with him.
That having been said, there is no way that a strike ends well. If we do the kind of therapeutic, pinprick attack with standoff weapons that doesn't have any serious effect on the Assad regime's capacity to wage war, we accomplish nothing except reducing our cruise missile stocks (something that Clinton did, which ended up depleting our capabilities when we needed them). It also gives Assad street cred for having defied American power and, whether we want it or not, puts us on the side of the rebels (at least in terms of perception). If, OTOH, we do nothing, then Obama has talked tough and backed down, which gives all of our enemies another indication of the spinelessness of the current administration (as if they needed more), and will signal to all of them that they can run wild for the next three years. Of course, Obama could surprise everyone and actually take decisive action that inflicts major damage on Assad, and ends up hastening his demise, but the odds on that are pretty remote because it would (a) offend Iran, (b) empower al Qaeda without giving us anything in return and (c) require sufficient understanding of the options to make an informed and intelligent decision, which is hard to do from the back nine at the FT Belvoir golf course.
The logical thing to do would be to establish a no-fly zone in the Kurdish province (near the Iraqi border), build up our one ally in the region and unleash them after the other combatants have exhausted ourselves. This will establish a pro-US player in the revolt, and give us some leverage if and when Assad is deposed. This, of course, requires that we use the military, financial and diplomatic tools at our disposal to reach out to a potential ally, use alliances already established, and do the slow, painstaking work of building up a functioning proxy combat force that will advance American interests in the region. I highly doubt that anyone in the Obama administration has the understanding of the situation to do this, much less the will. Certainly Obama doesn't, and his sole concern in this matter is getting it out of the headlines without interfering with his tee time.
09-03-2013, 11:05 AM
He's one of the three least-reliable votes when party-line issues like filibusters arise, and it mystifies me that any GOP Senator (Aside from the deranged gentleman from SC who shares his Democrat values) pays him any heed at all. After a failed Presidential bid, he should have been damaged goods in the Senate for several years just the same way Kerry was, but the GOP as the minority party was too desperate for his vote to treat him as he has earned.
09-03-2013, 11:33 AM
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|