Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Swalwell Considering Support For Use Of Military Force Against Syria

CONGRESS//15th DISTRICT | In the first major vote of his young congressional career, Rep. Eric Swalwell says he will consider approving the President’s plan to use military force in Syria, but not without further details he hopes will keep U.S. ground troops out of another foreign entanglement.

“The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used chemical weapons to massacre innocent civilians, including children,” Swalwell said Tuesday in a statement. “The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is horrific and must have serious consequences so it does not happen again. I will consider a limited U.S. military response. However, I want to make clear that I stand in strong opposition to putting troops on the ground.

Swalwell spent time last week in Afghanistan as part of a congressional delegation during which he commiserated with soldiers and their superiors.

“The resolution proposed by the President is too broad and I cannot support it in its current form. Any resolution to authorize force must have clear language limiting the scope and duration of American involvement.”

The nuanced stance is a middle ground between Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s support for the President’s desire for air strikes against the Syrian regime and a group of anti-war Democrats led by Swalwell’s congressional counterpart in Alameda County, Rep. Barbara Lee, who says another use of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East is unwise.

According to the USA Today, the Obama administration plans to “flood the zone” with supporter of military force, hoping to cajole congressional votes before the issue comes up for consideration as early as Sept. 9.

On Sunday, Swalwell tweeted, “I am deeply concerned that the proposed White House resolution for #Syria is over-broad and would allow troops on the ground. Can't support.”

However, Swalwell was not one of over 60 members of Congress who signed a letter to the President composed by Lee, forcefully urging against an authorization of military force in Syria. Lee, of course, famously lodged the lone vote against the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001, which later expanded into protracted wars in that country and later in Iraq.

“We must learn the lessons of the past. Lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and others,” Lee said last Thursday. “We must recognize that what happens in Syria does not stay in Syria; the implications for the region are dire.” Bay Area Reps. George Miller, John Garamendi and Mike Honda also signed Lee’s letter.


Where is Mr. Swalwell getting his terrible talking points from, military experience should have taught him better - wait.

Barack Hussein Obama rose to power by attacking--in a somewhat apocryphal 2002 speech--what he called George Walker Bush's "dumb war" in Iraq. Let us compare Obama's approach to Syria with Bush's in Iraq.

1.Bush in Iraq: Attacked an evil regime isolated for over a decade by both Democrats and Republicans.
Obama in Syria: Wants to attack an evil regime coddled for six years by Democrats and the White House.
2.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after UN inspectors turned away, in violation of Security Council resolutions.
Obama in Syria: Announced plans to attack before any inspections, and in fact opposed UN inspections.
3.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after UN Security Council deadlocked on authorization for use of force.
Obama in Syria: Has not attempted to obtain UN Security Council authorization for use of force.
4.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after building multinational "coalition of the willing" with Britain.
Obama in Syria: Plans to attack without multinational coalition and after British rejection of war.
5.Bush in Iraq: Sought authorization from Congress first, before going to UN or planning any attack.
Obama in Syria: Opposed authorization from Congress until "red line" & attack were already announced.
6.Bush in Iraq: Attacked Iraq as part of War on Terror against Al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
Obama in Syria: Says "War on Terror" is over, is arming Islamist groups allied with Al Qaeda.
7.Bush in Iraq: Clear objectives, including regime change to replace dictatorship with democracy.
Obama in Syria: No clear objectives, formal opposition to any direct effort at regime change.
8.Bush in Iraq: Acted before Saddam Hussein could threaten neighbors or his own people.
Obama in Syria: Acting after Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered 100,000 Syrians, threatened neighbors.
9.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after moving strategic U.S. military assets to the region to protect U.S. allies.
Obama in Syria: Acting after "pivot to Asia," after military sequester, and despite risks to allies.
10.Bush in Iraq: Gave up golf for the rest of his presidency while U.S. troops still in combat.

Obama in Syria: Went golfing (again) after announcing new Syria policy.
There is one other key difference, sure to be raised by critics: Assad has weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was not found to have the WMD he was thought to be stockpiling. But there was no way to know that before the Iraq War. And in Syria, it is possible that some rebel forces possess--and have used--chemical weapons as well. Regardless, Bush comes off best in this comparison with Obama.

Bush fought against the enemy - ODumbo is fight with.

It appears our young congressman doesn't know what he wants to do. Covering his ass is his main motive at this point.

By MW:

Various demagogues, er, excuse me, I mean politicians, are arguing we should get involved in Syria, since it is alleged that the present Syrian government has supposedly recently killed approx fifteen hundred people with poison gas.

However the executives of our tobacco companies and their crooked lawyers kill far more people than that, and even only in the United States alone, every single week.

In fact on a worldwide basis, the executives of the tobacco companies and their crooked lawyers kill far more than fifteen hundred people every single day.

So rather than going to wear against Syria, let's instead go to war against the tobacco companies, their crooked lawyers, and the corrupt judges, and who in exchange for under the tables bribes, roll over for the tobacco companies.

In fact, I would even consider tobacco smoke to be a form of poison gas.

What a fake platitude-dude - yawwwn. GO BARBARA - we know where Stark would have stood!

A large majority of Americans are opposed to this. Swallwell loses to Ellen Corbett in 2014 for sure.

Maybe in Barbara Lee's district but not here, sonny.

This is the new 15th district, reclaimed by the people from the ultra liberals.

Bombs away!

Check out the polls that are in every newspaper- poster above. A large majority of all Americans across the nation are opposed. Republicans, Democrats and Independents by big margins don't what is proposed by Obama. Sorry sonny.

Swallwell=flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, etc. What a panderer.

Post a Comment