Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMichael Tomasky: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Their Craven and Brazen Hypocrisy on Syria
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Their Craven and Brazen Hypocrisy on Syria
by Michael Tomasky Sep 9, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
If Romney were president, his party would be wailing for Assads head on a pike. But since Obama wants action, Republicans like Cruz and Rubio are against Obamas war. Its contemptible, says Michael Tomasky.
The Republican hypocrisy on Syria is just amazing. Imagine that Mitt Romney were president. Romney took a far more hawkish line than Barack Obama did on Syria during the campaign. He wanted to arm the rebels, supported in-country cover ops, and so on. So if Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons during President Romneys tenure, theres every reason to think hed be pushing for action too. And what, in that case, would Republicans now temporizing or opposing Obama be doing in that case? Theyd be breathing fire, of course. Theres a lot of chest thumping talk right now about how a failed vote will destroy Obamas credibility. I guess that may be to some. But to anyone paying attention, the credibility of these Republicans is what will suffer, and the vote may well come back to haunt some of them in 2016.
Some Republicans are, to their credit, taking the position consistent with their records. John McCain stood up to those people who looked like they were about two feet away from his face at that town hall meeting last week. Lindsey Graham deserves more credit, since hes facing reelection and is being called a community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood. On the other side, Rand Paul and the neo-isolationists are probably taking the same position theyd take if Romney were president, although we cant be completely sure. If Romney were in the White House, by 2016, was so-and-so tough on Syria? would probably be a top litmus test (unless, of course, things got really terrible over there). I could easily see Paul declaiming on the unique evil of chemical weapons that just this once required him to break from his noninterventionist views, but as things stand he at least is taking the position with which he is identified.
But most of them? Please. The Gold Weasel Medal goes to Marco Rubio, as others such as Tim Noah have noted. Back in April, Rubio thundered that the time for passive engagement in this conflict must come to an end. It is in the vital national security interest of our nation to see Assads removal. Removal! Obamas not talking about anything close to removal. So that was Rubios hard line back when Obama was on the other side. And now that Obama wants action? Rubio voted against the military resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
Ted Cruz? Just in June, Cruz wanted to go into Syria and rough em up. We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. Now? Syria is a distraction from, you guessed it, Benghazi. He said last week: We certainly dont have a dog in the fight. We should be focused on defending the United States of America. Thats why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as al Qaedas air force.
more...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/09/marco-rubio-ted-cruz-and-their-craven-and-brazen-hypocrisy-on-syria.html
by Michael Tomasky Sep 9, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
If Romney were president, his party would be wailing for Assads head on a pike. But since Obama wants action, Republicans like Cruz and Rubio are against Obamas war. Its contemptible, says Michael Tomasky.
The Republican hypocrisy on Syria is just amazing. Imagine that Mitt Romney were president. Romney took a far more hawkish line than Barack Obama did on Syria during the campaign. He wanted to arm the rebels, supported in-country cover ops, and so on. So if Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons during President Romneys tenure, theres every reason to think hed be pushing for action too. And what, in that case, would Republicans now temporizing or opposing Obama be doing in that case? Theyd be breathing fire, of course. Theres a lot of chest thumping talk right now about how a failed vote will destroy Obamas credibility. I guess that may be to some. But to anyone paying attention, the credibility of these Republicans is what will suffer, and the vote may well come back to haunt some of them in 2016.
Some Republicans are, to their credit, taking the position consistent with their records. John McCain stood up to those people who looked like they were about two feet away from his face at that town hall meeting last week. Lindsey Graham deserves more credit, since hes facing reelection and is being called a community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood. On the other side, Rand Paul and the neo-isolationists are probably taking the same position theyd take if Romney were president, although we cant be completely sure. If Romney were in the White House, by 2016, was so-and-so tough on Syria? would probably be a top litmus test (unless, of course, things got really terrible over there). I could easily see Paul declaiming on the unique evil of chemical weapons that just this once required him to break from his noninterventionist views, but as things stand he at least is taking the position with which he is identified.
But most of them? Please. The Gold Weasel Medal goes to Marco Rubio, as others such as Tim Noah have noted. Back in April, Rubio thundered that the time for passive engagement in this conflict must come to an end. It is in the vital national security interest of our nation to see Assads removal. Removal! Obamas not talking about anything close to removal. So that was Rubios hard line back when Obama was on the other side. And now that Obama wants action? Rubio voted against the military resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
Ted Cruz? Just in June, Cruz wanted to go into Syria and rough em up. We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. Now? Syria is a distraction from, you guessed it, Benghazi. He said last week: We certainly dont have a dog in the fight. We should be focused on defending the United States of America. Thats why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as al Qaedas air force.
more...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/09/marco-rubio-ted-cruz-and-their-craven-and-brazen-hypocrisy-on-syria.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1048 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michael Tomasky: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Their Craven and Brazen Hypocrisy on Syria (Original Post)
flpoljunkie
Sep 2013
OP
Crazy is not governing but we have a few trying to use this tactic. If they spent as much effort
Thinkingabout
Sep 2013
#1
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)1. Crazy is not governing but we have a few trying to use this tactic. If they spent as much effort
in true governing as they do in being stupid and crazy we just might get something accomplished.