Posted on 09/08/2013 6:33:38 PM PDT by JSDude1
As we wait for Godot — I mean President Obama’s address to the American people on Tuesday night — it looks at present as if both the House and Senate will not grant him the “yes” vote that he is seeking on a Syria strike.
I have read virtually every op-ed and argument on all sides of the question that have appeared, from people on both sides whose views I respect, and one of the problems is that there are good arguments to make on both sides. Today I watched Fox News Sunday, the impressive panel on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, which included General Wesley Clark and Paul Wolfowitz, and a separate interview with Bernard Henri-Levy. And of course, as readers know, I have exchanged arguments on this site with Bryan Preston.
On the interventionist side, I have considered the views of Bill Kristol, Stephen F. Hayes, Eliot Cohen, Clifford D. May, and many others. Read them for yourself. If we have a stake in the outcome, and we do, we cannot ignore their arguments. This is particularly true if you believe that we must stay out of Syria.
On the non-interventionist side, I have read Kathleen Parker, Andy McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles R. Kesler, Fareed Zakaria and others who hold a similar perspective. If you are on the side of those who favor a strike, you have the obligation to think and listen to their arguments against it.
One side makes the case; the other side rebuts it. That is what a serious debate should be. But let me single out one essay in particular and take up the problems with the interventionist perspective. The argument comes from none other than Rep. Eric Cantor, the majority leader in the House of Representatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
---Cut---Paste:
Next comes the least convincing part of Cantor’s argument. He raises the point of those who question whether by intervening we would be “actually helping al-Qaida” and thus end up replacing “one evil with an even greater evil.” Here is what he then argues:
But extremist groups represent only a minority of those opposing Assad. Moderate opposition groups leading the fight against Assad are under attack by al-Qaida as well, and if this conflict draws on, more foreign jihadists will join the extremists and threaten moderate elements.
Continued American inaction will undermine these moderate forces and empower the extremist terrorists who seek to displace them. Right now, the extremists are exploiting the argument that the moderates cannot rely on the U.S. to come to their aid or even enforce our own red lines. It is in our interests that neither Assad – a primary sponsor of terrorism – nor al-Qaida comes out on top.
The problem is that intelligence reports, as Reuters let its readers learn, “contradict Secretary of State John Kerry’s public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence [and] appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”
i’m assuming members will be “summoned” to the wh, ala obamacare vote, and then the poliboro, I mean congress can then vote.
There is only one rational side to this argument. Those who favor this intervention are either total fools or favor it for their own enrichment at the cost of precious American lives.
There is no reason at all to go into Syria. Both sides are our enemies.
Yes, but one side (Al Qaeda) is worse than the other - for Obama that's reason enough to topple the Assad regime. It's the Obama trend.
this is extremely important to consider.
NOT ONE person(cantor included) on the side of attacking Syria makes the point of having conclusive evidence beyond any doubt that Assad ordered a chemical attack.
the evidence that does exist tends to point guilt at the so-called rebels.
this is hardly a reasoned approach to possibly igniting WW3, not to mention that since this is aiding radical muzzies who are the enemies of America, this is treasonous.
OK, let me see if I understand Obama’s position on this.
We have to kill some Syrians to scare Iran and North Korea because Assad might have used chemical weapons on Syrians.
I’ve got it! Let’s kill some North Koreans to scare Assad! There’s the ticket. Maybe we could kill some Iranians to frighten the Chinese!
We sat for decades and listened to the Democrats make fun of “The Domino Theory”, and now they have come up with “The Chinese Checker Theory”.
Hey! Democrats! Pour some maple syrup on the dog turd that is Syria and maybe it will taste better to you.
Or both.
We have little to win and a lot to lose by getting involved in this civil war. Our enemies are doing a pretty good job of killing each other off. We should let them continue.
pure gold that was. Chinese Checkers. I hope that gets to Rush for tomorrows show.
Obama’s interest in invading non-enemy Syria has nothing to do with Syria, poison gas, or children.
Obama’s interest in bombing non-enemy Syria has everything to do with creating a long-lasting, controversial, DISTRACTION for Congress in order to keep Congress from defunding Obama”care”/Boehnerkare.
Obama’s “Red Herring” for the 9-11 Benghazi Massacre Coverup was Susan Rice’s fake Video story.
Obama’s “Red Herring” for distracting Congress until Obama”care”/ Boehnerkare kicks in October 1 is Obama’s “Crossing HIS personal Red Line” distraction speech.
Obama speaks only for Obama, not the US Federal Government or America.
My Congressman sent me an email with a link to express my views and I did so. That and praying to the Lord above is all I can do.
Thanks for doing so!
Send him another email that alerts him to the fact that Obama has never told us the truth in any of his speeches.
All Obama has left to do is to get Obama”care”/Boehnerkare fully implemented, and his pledge of “Fundamentally changing the United States of America” will be complete.
So, if the advanced arms that Russia has in this arena include anti ship missiles, that are actually state of the art, and we commit an act of aggression (war). Will the Russians allow Syria the opportunity to destroy our aggressive assets? We started it. We did not have clear and convincing UN ready evidence (imagine I am taking the devil’s advocate position here). Do we take on Russia when Putin made his position clear? When the rest of the world is behind us...way, way, way far behind us!
Putin is betting that Obama will fold. Maybe killing a ship is enough of a lesson. Maybe not. The rest of the world is on which side of that bet? Where is Bibi? For the last two years the president has been clearly seen as a totally incompetent CinC, much less leader of any sort. He did not have a record of any leadership prior to the presidency either. But he got elected.
And here we are, WW3 in the middle east has started a bit ago, with the nonsense about theocratic democracy, without minority rights, or human rights for that matter.
The bet is almost in, Putin or Obama. Place your bets...
DK
By the way, someone mentioned Weasley Clark as an informed opinion. He almost started WW3 in Kosovo, per British Nato General Michael Jackson, over Russian troops at an airport, so I doubt his opinion is worth the NY Times it is written in.
So far, the Israeli’s destroyed the shipment of Russian advanced anti-ship missiles, but in reality, Russia would not let Syria attack a US ship with one of those missiles, just because the US might think it came from a Russian ship. Besides, and Aegis ship is not an easy target for any missile. There are converted boomers (ICBM subs) over there that have upwards of 192 cruise missiles in the tubes. The Syrians aren’t likely to be able to strike a boomer, especially with the likely attack subs with them. Vlad isn’t about to get into a nuclear confrontation over Syria. Most of the initial strikes will be with drones, to take out anti air and anti ship radars. The advanced missiles need shore based, or ship based radar for the initial phase of their flight. Iran is watching closely, and this WMD test, is just that, a test to determine if they can cross the nuclear finish line without any major consequences.
Exactly! What is with this author trying to be “fair”? It just makes him sound like an idiot.
Erkel
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.