Posted on 09/03/2013 3:58:13 PM PDT by ClaytonP
Syria's butcher Bashir Assad could end up toppling British Prime Minister David Cameron and not the other way around, while also giving Russia a big boost back on to the Great Power stage and green lighting Tehran's most ambitious and sparky plans in its mountain tunnel complexes.
Along the way he has exposed President Obama as feckless and fearful. The president and his team are scrambling to remind lawmakers of what the Commander-in-Chief ought to have long ago argued to the country: When the good guys blink, the bad guys notice.
Lots and lots of blinking. Most of the people who could be expected to step up and support significant punishment of Assad, while noting the importance of any president following through on presidential threats, have been out of sight.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is happy to tell you we have no interests in any of this, and kudos to him for his honesty. Will that play in the 2016 primaries beyond 10 percent of the GOP? If it does, the party of Ronald Reagan is dead, and former Ohio Sen. Bob Taft will finally get his due.
It’s doubtful that Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Perry of Texas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin see it Rand's way, or Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida or John Thune of South Dakota, but none have yet dared to make the sort of statements of policy and purpose on Syria that get noticed.
Three of the governors have re-election campaigns, which excuse them to some extent from blunt talk about tough choices, but Rubio, Thune and Perry have a lot of opportunity right now to stand for Reagan's robust commitment to international stability, American greatness, and a refusal to be intimidated by Russia, much less by smaller states with big plans.
Rep. Tom Cotton, a combat veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq, was blunt and bold, calling for military retaliation against Assad before any other major figure in American politics had done so.
"Rangers lead the way" is the proud statement of that community, and Cotton was and remains at least in spirit an Army Ranger. He is providing an example for the presently cowed national-security Republicans.
Here is the problem: The small-government folks applaud Paul, and the rule-of-law conservatives share much of his agenda of concern over the president and his administration's epic lawlessness and arrogance, but there is a significant difference between a president's ability to act unilaterally at home and abroad.
These commonalities cannot obscure the huge chasm between a Taft Republican and an Eisenhower Republican when it comes to the world and the military's strength.
Last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel suggested the U.S. could have to make do with eight or nine carriers, and the response from the GOP was ... silence. Admiral Mahan is getting kicked to the curb along with all memory of the '30s.
The nonsense about "war weariness" is a Manhattan-Beltway media elite trope, a familiar dodge to get the blame off of their beloved Barack and back on Bush, despite the fact that W's free states of Iraq and Afghanistan are doing well compared to Obama's experiments in Egypt and Libya.
American leadership and military prowess isn't perfect, and leadership isn't easy and is never free from errors. Fecklessness, by contrast, is always disastrous.
The side-by-side comparisons of the world as Bush left it in January 2009 and as it is now in September 2013 make the case for American strength. Now, when will the GOP's front bench gather the courage to say so?
No one has answered the question as to whether Syria is an imminent threat. I do not see it as one as long as their Civil War stays within their borders.
If there is an imminent threat, it is represented by an armed and empowered al Qaeda.
Which is who Obama is trying to help, of course.
Shameless party hack. I’d like to know where the pathetic Salem Radio Network gets their $$$. It’s sure not from ratings.
God only knows...
He's just another Hussein mouth piece....
Bob Taft was right. It’s just that simple.
Just whose side should we be on? Who should be support? Neither is our ally, and BOTH are enemies of our greatest ally in the Middle East.
Rubio, Thune and Perry have a lot of opportunity right now to stand for Reagan's robust commitment to international stability, American greatness, and a refusal to be intimidated by Russia, much less by smaller states with big plans. Rep. Tom Cotton, a combat veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq, was blunt and bold, calling for military retaliation against Assad before any other major figure in American politics had done so... Last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel suggested the U.S. could have to make do with eight or nine carriers, and the response from the GOP was ... silence. Admiral Mahan is getting kicked to the curb along with all memory of the '30s. The nonsense about "war weariness" is a Manhattan-Beltway media elite trope, a familiar dodge to get the blame off of their beloved Barack and back on Bush... The side-by-side comparisons of the world as Bush left it in January 2009 and as it is now in September 2013 make the case for American strength. Now, when will the GOP's front bench gather the courage to say so?
Rubio, Thune and Perry have a lot of opportunity right now to stand for Reagan's robust commitment to international stability, American greatness, and a refusal to be intimidated by Russia, much less by smaller states with big plans. Rep. Tom Cotton, a combat veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq, was blunt and bold, calling for military retaliation against Assad before any other major figure in American politics had done so... Last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel suggested the U.S. could have to make do with eight or nine carriers, and the response from the GOP was ... silence. Admiral Mahan is getting kicked to the curb along with all memory of the '30s. The nonsense about "war weariness" is a Manhattan-Beltway media elite trope, a familiar dodge to get the blame off of their beloved Barack and back on Bush... The side-by-side comparisons of the world as Bush left it in January 2009 and as it is now in September 2013 make the case for American strength. Now, when will the GOP's front bench gather the courage to say so?
It’s Kosovo all over again.
These are pretty basic operational questions. What I'm hearing isn't a military answer - this action is expected to yield that result. What I'm hearing is a political statement - we have to blow something up so we can prove we can blow something up. That is perhaps the stupidest (although not the most unprecedented) cassus belli in history.
And so we will, as a nation, be led to a stupid policy that is wildly unpopular based on the pure ego of the narcissistic infant we have in the Oval Office and the slavish devotion of his followers, who cannot leave any insult to Dear Leader unanswered. That's a damn poor reason to start killing anyone.
Dammit - “casus belli”. Keyboard bounce.
We would have been better off not getting into the First World War! The U. S. would have been a better place. Also, the major powers woulds have been forced to negotiate.
Hugh cannot be serious??
I’ve listened to Hugh for years. He has not served, but talks highly of those who do serve and butters up his relations and friends who are in uniform.
You and I know that knowing veterans is a far cry from serving yourself.
What bothers me is how he is spinning his data. We’re not going back to the ‘30’s. Prudence dictates that no nation should fight any war when its unprepared. Our military does not have the $$$ to engage in any needless conflict and is stretched thin already.
All these political elitists, Hewitt included, are not considering the horrible blowback that can result from the assumption that our involvement will be offensive alone.
We’re going to have a counter-attack. Count on it.
Yet another piece describing Obama’s “War for Ego”.
Obama needs to lay out his cassus belli. Until he makes a convincing case of why striking Syria is in the NATION’S best interests, the matter should be resolved by a resounding “HELL NO” vote in congress.
Obama’s eye ticks have no bearing on the nation’s interests.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think Americans would go for Iran either.
I do not think so either... not unless a threat was looming and it was indisputable.
LLS
Your feeble attempts at entertainment and humor, the Cleveland Browns...the “fetching” Mrs Hewitt...Blah! Blah Blah!
Dude! You are not getting the job done! Talk radio is practically the only defense for the Constitution and Traditional Family Values.
And in case you haven't noticed...We are losing BIGTIME!
I know...we are supposed to come together over issues involving military deployment, but the old formulas don't work.
This is not a President anyone can TRUST! His motives cannot be trusted. He is not competent to conduct any military operation.
As he said himself, "My credibility is not on the line...America's credibility is on the line."
That says it all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.