Ted Cruz: Let’s go into Syria, secure or destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, then get out

posted at 6:01 pm on June 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Charles Cooke, a follow-up to Monday’s post about whether Cruz really is a “wacko bird” libertarian like his frequent ally Rand Paul. Three days ago, Cruz said that the NSA revelations were cause for concern — but cautioned that we shouldn’t rush to judgment. Meanwhile, Paul was busy putting together a class-action suit to challenge the agency. Fast-forward to today and Paul is announcing that he plans to introduce a new Senate bill that would bar the White House from giving direct or indirect support to any faction in Syria. (Humanitarian aid would be permitted.) There are three co-sponsors — two Democrats and Mike Lee, one of Paul’s usual partners in legislation. Which other usual partner is missing?

Here’s Cruz on the Senate floor this afternoon making his case on whether or not to intervene. He agrees with Paul and with most of the GOP in arguing firmly that we shouldn’t be arming the sort of people who fly planes into American skyscrapers. But then, at around 6:00 of the clip, he tosses a curveball. From his office’s press release:

“The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons,” Sen. Cruz said. “We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

Is Rand Paul open to the U.S. being “firmly in the lead” on a search-and-destroy mission for Assad’s WMDs? I can’t remember seeing him address that question directly but I’m guessing he’ll have to soon after this. As for whether it’s even possible to do this, AEI’s Michael Rubin thinks maybe:

The key threat to the United States emerging from Syria is loose chemical weapons. The Pentagon won’t be able to secure these — in Libya, it took more than a week for American experts to decommission Muammar Qadhafi’s program in 2003, and that was without anyone shooting at them. Perhaps it’s time to take a page from the Israeli playbook, enforce our red line, and bomb the heck out of these depots and weaponry. It might cause some contamination — but leafleting before a strike might mitigate collateral damage. The objective has to be to keep such weapons out of the hands of both sides.

Hard for me to believe that the White House would risk the PR clusterfark of bombing a sarin depot and inadvertently releasing a poison death cloud that kills countless innocent people nearby. No sense leafletting beforehand either; if Assad hasn’t already dispersed his weapons for fear of the U.S. trying something precisely like this, that would do it. I keep thinking too that if Assad was willing to defy the “red line” already, knowing that it would humiliate Obama and risk American retaliation, he’d be willing to do it again if we took dramatic action against his known WMD depots. Bomb one depot, he (and Iran) might be thinking, and he’ll fire 50 sarin shells into some Syrian city square. Maybe the U.S. is willing to pay that price if most of the rest of his stockpile can be eliminated in the process, but it’s a scenario to prepare for. Of course, if WMDs are what you’re worried about and not which side of Syria’s fundie civil war ultimately prevails, the quickest way to get Assad’s chemical genie back in the bottle is for him to actually win. If the Sunni jihadis are routed, the chemical weapons that he’s had for years are once again safe from dispersal. Unless, of course, they’ve been dispersed already.

If you believe Time magazine, the U.S. and Israel are already coordinating on ways to target Assad’s unconventional weapons. As for Cruz, whether or not his stance is feasible militarily, it makes sense politically. Like I said a few days ago, he’s a tea partier, not a libertarian; tea partiers are, for very good reasons, highly skeptical of another intervention under Obama but I think most of them remain hawks on balance. Cruz needed to find a way to slam O for his plan while endorsing something that would distinguish him from doves like Paul. This is the middle ground — hit Assad hard, but don’t follow Obama and McCain on some quixotic neoconservative mission to find and empower the “good guys.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Another neocon outs himself.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

This would be the “realist’s” option — “If the chemical weapons are the reason for inteveaning, then just remove the chemical weapons and leave”.
The “neocon” option would basically be a repeat of Iraq — “invade, set up a democratic government, and stay until it is stable”, which is actually going to eventually happen, since this situation will keep getting worse until someone invades and imposes order.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I think Cruz’ approach is probably an ideal-world scenario, maybe not achievable in the real-world.

I have no trouble with dribbling in some Czech AKs and SA7s to make things expensive for Putin. But otherwise I follow the ‘not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier’ approach.

JEM on June 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM

It’s kind of depressing to watch Hot Air morph into the Daily Kaus on use of US power just because a Democrat is in office.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Another neocon outs himself.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

If Cruz is a neocon, then neocons have more members than originally thought.

thebrokenrattle on June 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

It’s not like the constitution allows former green card holders to be president.

HotAirLib on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

* The Immigration and Naturalisation Act of 1940, 8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person:

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Source:

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301,66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12,Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

Canadian birthright citizenship is covered in Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which states that:

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970. He was not a Canadian citizen at birth. He was an AMERICAN CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

He HEVER had a green card and returned to the US forever at the age of 4.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-3.html

On my team, I have the author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, (R-MI), his second, Senator Edward Cowan, (R-PA), the Congressional Research Service, Citizenship of the United States, written by Frederick van Dyne, the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State in 1904, Harvard Law Professor Allan Dershowitz, Eugene Volokh, the Gary T Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, Lawrence Tribe, a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, and more.

HAL has the Birther Queen, herself, the ‘dentist-lawyer,’ Orly Taitz.

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

coldwarrior on June 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM

That is right. Assad is a awful guy but he is a rational awful guy who does not want to die. That is someone I can understand, dislike yes, but I understand. The people on the other side, the ones Obama wants to support, are deranged lunatics who don’t have a rational bone in their body.

Assad is allied with Iran, because he has no choice. The Sunnis think he and his Alawites are heretics and should be exterminated off the planet. They are a small bizarre religious sect in the middle of a Sunni sea. Assad and the Alawites have made alliances with the minority Christians and Druze. If Assad is such a bad guy why is he supported by the Christians and Druze as well. That is because none of these people want to live under a bunch lunatic Sunnis who want to cut their heads off, rape their daughters and wives, and establish sharia law. I can understand why Assad and his forces are fighting…they are fighting for their lives. That is logical…That I can understand…

William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Yep.

We should be doing everything we can to support Israel in every way and pay close attention to their intelligence. I don’t think either Israel or Jordan want Syria to bleed over their borders and Jordan is likely nervous about thousands of jihadis from allover the place going to Syria.

That said…I think Cruz is tactically putting pressure on Obama.

Obama once again decided to put American troops on the border and is leading from behind by pledging to put weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Obama as CIC is the loose cannon here…not Cruz.

workingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 8:00 PM

I think Cruz’ approach is probably an ideal-world scenario, maybe not achievable in the real-world.

I have no trouble with dribbling in some Czech AKs and SA7s to make things expensive for Putin. But otherwise I follow the ‘not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier’ approach.

JEM on June 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM

If you want to make it difficult for people you hate, consider saturating the country with handguns. Not exactly things that would be useful against US troops, but damned inconvenient to unarmored Jihadis or 3rd world regime troops.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 8:01 PM

“Nation-building follows nation-destruction. There’s no sense trying to build anything until the population remaining has been relieved in the most violent fashion possible of any resistance to our superiority.”

- JEM For President 2016 campaign flyer

JEM on June 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

If we could fly in there, take out the weapons and fly out, I would say go for it.

vamp57mw on June 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM

No. I think we both agree that invading another country is a tab bit more complicated than hopping your neighbour’s fence to retrieve your frisbee.

Cruz’s proposal is insane.

Even if it could be done, an action like that destroys forever the concept of National Sovereignty that has ordered international affairs since the Treaty of Westphalia. Syria has not attacked us. They have not committed unprovoked cross-border aggressions against any of our allies. This revolt is an internal affair for Syria. If there was a legitimate struggle, being carried out by forces which could in the long run be of benefit to us and our allies, then we could debate committing aid in various ways short of direct military action. But to declare war and invade a Syria in this instance would be insane and illegal.

If we don’t respect the sovereignty of other nations, then we devalue our own. And with the increasingly Globalist rhetoric of our own elected political class, we know exactly where this will end up. By violation the concept of sovereignty in aggression against Syria, we would only be sharpening the knife that would eventually be stuck in our own back.

And that’s not to mention the empowering yet again, of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of the Caliphate that would result from this action. A minor point, I know.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Sounds straight forward enough. In Out. Certain measures when Al Qaeda is involved must be taken. Sorry to all who label me a Neocon. I’m not. Seems the Assad regime is failing. Time to secure before a unsettling event occurs. Being proactive on defense doesn’t make you anything except proactive on defense.

Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

“Further, while nations sometimes deserve destruction, only those who represent significant potential allies or significant potential threats necessarily deserve nation-building. It suits American interests to have pissant little bungholes reduced to eating rats if they threaten US interests; they should not expect us to expend our blood and treasure to bring them into the 21st century.”

- JEM For President 2016 campaign flyer

JEM on June 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

In the mean time I am all to happy to see them killing each other.

Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Seems the Assad regime is failing. Time to secure before a unsettling event occurs. Being proactive on defense doesn’t make you anything except proactive on defense.

Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

In the last 6 weeks, Assad has gained the upper hand.

These are whom we would be helping:

Pics of the Day: Nice Syrian Friends You’ve Got There, Barry, Insane, Lurch & Marco (UPDATED)

Not in my name.

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

But to declare war and invade a Syria in this instance would be insane and illegal.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Worse, there won’t be a declaration of war. Obama/McCain simply want to go in and kill something. Congress would never declare war, for it has no reason to.

Liam on June 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

This is what our foreign policy should look like.Define an American interest, then use sudden,overwhelming force to secure it,without a prolonged conflict involving huge loss of life and treasure.Cruz is the only GOP contender I would actually vote for.

redware on June 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Easier to get one into a quagmire than to get one out of one.

To think that it would be easy (relatively) is probably the first step towards finding that it isn’t as easy to do as it is to say it.

Russ808 on June 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

When the various factions of the Religion of Peace are all listed on the World Wildlife Federation’s list of endangered species…then, perhaps, we can figure out best how to assist in real peace in the Middle East.

The cultural/religious groups that have killed more Mohammedans than any other identifiable group all belong to the Religion of Peace.

It is their problem…not ours.

coldwarrior on June 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

This would be the “realist’s” option — “If the chemical weapons are the reason for inteveaning, then just remove the chemical weapons and leave”.
The “neocon” option would basically be a repeat of Iraq — “invade, set up a democratic government, and stay until it is stable”, which is actually going to eventually happen, since this situation will keep getting worse until someone invades and imposes order.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM

“remove and leave”

What does that even mean? Nothing. It is a moronic, naïve statement. Totally implausible in every way.

“which is actually going to eventually happen…”

Of course neocons are dying to get their foot in the door, even under the pretense of “remove and leave” nonsense.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Seems the Assad regime is failing.

-Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

The Assad regime is not just “failing” out of some act of nature. As if struck by the flu, or something. The regime is under attack by forces assembled and armed by us. If we cease and desist in this, the revolt will fail.

You want to commit US forces to an alien country, half the world away, which would result in our soldiers being maimed by both of the sides currently fighting. Savage and committed enemies at that. To the immediate detriment of our national security. Is there something about paraplegic Veterans that gives you a rush?

Good stuff. Great plan. Are you insane?

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM

This is what our foreign policy should look like.Define an American interest, then use sudden,overwhelming force to secure it,without a prolonged conflict involving huge loss of life and treasure.

redware on June 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out. You’ve obviously spent minutes planning it to most minute detail.

Would you be willing to forfeit one of your own limbs if it got messy? Or is it only the lives and limbs of others that you gamble with?

Will there be an end to this madness?

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM

NATJOUR: Not even six months into his first term, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is weighing whether to run for president in 2016.

Cruz, whose ambitions National Review reported Wednesday, wasted no time chiseling a niche for himself as a champion of conservatism: opposing gun-control legislation and expressing skepticism toward immigration reform.

There is, though, one question that nags at his possible goal of reaching the White House: Does Cruz, who was born in Canada, meet the constitutional muster of being a natural-born citizen? Cruz and a number of legal scholars say yes, but it’s an answer that begs for explanation.

The Constitution has only a few requirements for aspiring executives. Presidents must be at least 35 years old, have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and be a “natural born Citizen.” Cruz is 42. Check. He’s lived in Texas for more than 14 years. Check. But the definition of what it means to be a natural-born citizen has never been decided in the courts and the Constitution doesn’t explain exactly what it means by “natural born,” according to Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and citizenship-law expert.

“These questions get decided in the court of popular opinion,” said Spiro, who added he thinks Cruz counts as a natural-born citizen. “Why deprive ourselves of having the opportunity to choose somebody on the basis of that kind of formality?”

Cruz argues he fits the requirement because his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. “I’m a citizen by birth,” Cruz said in an interview with Sean Hannity in March.

He was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970, to a Cuban-born father, Rafael, and a Delaware-born mother, Eleanor. Both of his parents were in Canada working in the oil industry. They and Cruz moved to Texas, where his parents went to college, when the future senator was 4 years old. Federal law says that people born outside the U.S. to a parent or parents who are citizens and who have lived in the country are considered citizens at birth.

Some news organizations have taken a whack at answering this question as well. The Texas Tribune, for instance, said confidently in August 2012 that Cruz could be considered a natural-born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. “Bottom line: Despite being born in Canada, Ted Cruz can be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen,” the Tribune wrote.

Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz agreed. “Of course he’s eligible,” he told National Review. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen,” said Eugene Volokh, who’s a friend of Cruz.

Still, his Canadian birth means he’s also technically a Canadian citizen, according to Naomi Alboim, a professor who studies citizenship at Queen’s University in Ontario. But even if Cruz were to openly claim his Canadian citizenship along with his U.S. citizenship, that wouldn’t legally prevent him from becoming president. There’s no statutory bar to the presidency for dual citizens.

“Is it a wrinkle?” Spiro asked. “I think the answer is no.”

Cruz is NOT a natural-born Canadian citizen and I direct Ms Alboim to:

Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which states that:

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970.

He was not a Canadian citizen at birth. He was an AMERICAN CITIZEN AT BIRTH.

‘Cruz was a terrific student. He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian. He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses.

Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting. I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses. Cruz’s career has not surprised me. I thought he would go on to accomplish important things.

‘His movement toward social conservatism has surprised me a little bit,people will change and perhaps when you are at Harvard Law School you are less likely to espouse a socially conservative point of view.

Cruz was an outstanding student in my class. Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.’

- Constitutional Law Professor, Allan Dershowitz

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

“remove and leave”

What does that even mean? Nothing. It is a moronic, naïve statement. Totally implausible in every way.

Exactly what it sounds like, and what the isolationists and liberals were calling for in Iraq from day one.

“which is actually going to eventually happen…”

Of course neocons are dying to get their foot in the door, even under the pretense of “remove and leave” nonsense.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

You can ignore reality as long as you like, but that doesn’t mean it will ignore you.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Another neocon outs himself.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Sure, but many will tenaciously defend him, make excuses for him, and ignore this…simply because the list of (what appears to be) true Conservative candidates is getting shorter all the time. Ignorance is bliss.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I agree with you. I guess I just feel like getting rid of the weapons would be ideal and maybe help out Israel.

I actually thought I was a “hawk”, but honestly, now I feel like we need to just get out of that whole region and let the chips fall where they may over there as long as they are not a direct threat to us. Israel is our ally and if they need or want our help, fine, then help them… otherwise leave it alone. There is never going to be a true peace in that region.. at least not in our lifetimes.. why did we think we were any better prepared to make that happen? We are not the “world police” and I would rather see our country taking care of ourselves.. you know… like border security… but I guess that is a pipe dream..

vamp57mw on June 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Seems the Assad regime is failing. Time to secure before a unsettling event occurs. Being proactive on defense doesn’t make you anything except proactive on defense.

Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

That has worked real well in Libya and Egypt.

bw222 on June 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM

I’d say isolate, but that’s not possible.

wolly4321 on June 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM

“remove and leave”

What does that even mean? Nothing. It is a moronic, naïve statement. Totally implausible in every way.

Exactly what it sounds like, and what the isolationists and liberals were calling for in Iraq from day one.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Perhaps Count and Cruz have played too many COD video games. (it’s not real, kids)

McCain and Cruz neocons are dying to get their foot in the door under false pretext and lies.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

So, we let his WMD`s stand and hope to God AQ doesn`t get a hold of them?

ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:13 PM

No problemo!

If AQ gets them, we’ll just listen in on their phone conversations with PRISM

and we’ll stop’em dead in their tracks.

We’re covered.

//s//

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Libya and Egypt are easier to isolate.

We should have stayed in western Iraq. It would have shut down Russia and Iran. No chance of that now. The highway from Homs to Bagdad will just have more traffic east, now.

Turkey, Iran, Iraq, USSR.

Proxies. Western Turkey our illicit arms shipments. Eastern, Russians. They have northern Iran and Iraq.

Iraq was important.

wolly4321 on June 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

If AQ gets them, we’ll just listen in on their phone conversations with PRISM…Solaratov

No we won’t that would be PROFILING. Instead we’ll use PRISM to eavesdrop on grandmothers from Nebraska.

MaiDee on June 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Buck up, buttercups.

Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Is that you, Bluegill?

Damn! I hate condescending snots.

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

“Foreign born Cruz”

HotAirLib on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Xenophobic racist.

(You don’t seem to mind that your obamassiah doesn’t quite meet all the qualifications though.)

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:21 PM

either way you would still present an intellect equal to that of a doorstop.

Bishop on June 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

At least a doorstop serves a useful purpose.

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Let me seeif I have this right:

Assad’s stooges kill Hezbollah.

Hezbollah kills AQ.

AQ kills Assad’s stooges.

And we want to stop this why?

Just askin’.

Bruno Strozek on June 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do we have any proof that chemical weapons were used by anyone in Syria?

2. Would Assad receive arms & assistance from the U.S. by using them or would those that are trying to take Assad out?

3. Is this Administration using the chemical weapons as an excuse to send arms to Assad’s enemies?

There have been so many shoes dropping that it’s hard to keep up and I haven’t followed this as much.

bluefox on June 20, 2013 at 9:38 PM

It’s kind of depressing to watch Hot Air morph into the Daily Kaus on use of US power just because a Democrat is in office.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Not at all true. It doesn’t matter who the pResident is.

We have NO vital interests at risk in the Syrian civil/religious war that’s going on.

Our best move is let them fight it out and kill each other to their hearts’ content.

We have nothing to gain by supporting either side…and much to lose.

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Instead we’ll use PRISM to eavesdrop on grandmothers from Nebraska.

MaiDee on June 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Maybe get a new recipe for cupcakes.

Solaratov on June 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Hey Ted. Instead of that, lets go to hell in a handbasket. It will be much easier since we are already half way there, thanks to your R and D buddies.

Old Country Boy on June 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Moslems should be allowed to eat each other. But what of the Biblical Christians that the Caliphate is destroying>

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 9:56 PM

I said maybe, just maybe, Cruz shouldn’t be tossed aside for making this statement and I’ve been told I don’t belong in a democracy, I’m against sovereignty and I’m calling for censorship on Hot Air. To paraphrase Newsweek, I guess “We Are All Little Green Footballs Now”

This site needs Malkin back.

Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Mr.Cruz, this isn’t a mission in Tiberium Wars.

The battlefield is not neatly limited. The objective does not have a big yellow pointer over it and a number in a handy list. There is no save/restore function if things go south. And every time you hear “unit lost”, that was at least one and probably more American soldiers with a family who will have an irreparable hole in their lives from now on.

The only things that should be going into Syria should be missiles or bombs or artillery shells.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Jst wondering Liberals. Where did Doc Assad get his crap, since some Wag (Iraqi General) saw Putin”s people haul heavily loaded convoys carrying mysterious substances into Syria. By the way, sightings suggest that Putin was driving one of the trucks himself with his shirt off and wearing a Super Bowl ring.

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I think Cruz is making a political point and some that are ready to throw him under the bus are missing it.

bluefox on June 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Generally being proactive is better than being reactive. Of course there are times when you don’t have to do either.

A few things to consider.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood now control in Egypt. Egypt has nukes.

What is the status of Iran’s nukes?

Pakistan is . . . well Pakistan. Lots of nukes.

Syria is a battle between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Both of which hate the U.S..

What happens to the chemical weapons in the hands of either Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood?
Are they kept in a safe and quiet place in Syria?
Are they used in Syria?
Are they used in Israel?
Does Egypt end up with them?
Does Iran end up with them?
Do terrorist end up with them and bring them into the U.S. through our secure southern border borders?

What are the chances of this going “worse case scenario”?
If any of these end up going “worse case scenario” can you live with that?

What is the current risk to the U.S.?
What are the odds of a chemical weapon from Syria being used against Americans?

Let the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda kill each other off. The chemical weapons deserve some attention.

ritewhit on June 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Cruz 2016

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM

I think Cruz is making a political point and some that are ready to throw him under the bus are missing it.

bluefox on June 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM

His point was nice but he’s not thinking this through. Like, at all.

Our recent history with perpetual occupations should make it bloody well obvious that such a plan is no more likely to stick to its goals than a temporary tax.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Cruz is making a rhetorical challenge to Obama’s policy of arming our enemies.

Very senatorial thing to do…Rhetoric that is.

Have we as a people become so accustomed to political posturing, pandering,lectures and stiff arming that we’ve forgotten the role of rhetoric in actual debate.

Are we so cynical that everything is Kabuki and nothing is worth debating?

I don’t have to agree with the proposition to appreciate that debate and rhetoric is important in this era of secret meetings,lobbyists, and a congress guided by pollsters and consultants into passing omnibus bills that no one even reads.

Cruz is old school that way and I’m glad he and a few others are.

workingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Rhetoric – is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient philosophers. Cicero felt that a good orator needed also to be a good man, a person enlightened on a variety of civic topics.

As I see it Cruz is challenging Obama’s excuse in arming our enemies in a provocative fashion to stimulate debate in an open forum.

workingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

God Bless you, RWM.

rottenrobbie on June 20, 2013 at 11:00 PM

<blockquoworkingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

te>Academia has spoken

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Rhetoric – is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient philosophers. Cicero felt that a good orator needed also to be a good man, a person enlightened on a variety of civic topics.

As I see it Cruz is challenging Obama’s excuse in arming our enemies in a provocative fashion to stimulate debate in an open forum.

workingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

shr wld lik tuh tak yer crse sir but y see muh girl frind is prignt now

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Via Charles Cooke, a follow-up to Monday’s post about whether Cruz really is a “wacko bird” libertarian like his frequent ally Rand Paul.

-Analpudnik

Yeah, because not wildly supporting every damn fool foreign intervention our political overlords are pushing, the better angels of our nature, makes one a Libertarian.

Take a poll of Hot Air commenters who oppose intervention in Syria, and the Prism overlord clusterfark for that matter. I guarantee it’s ten percent or less.

There is absolutely nothing exclusively Libertarian about asserting that limits must be placed on the power of the State in actions either foreign or domestic.

sartana on June 21, 2013 at 1:42 AM

Deja vu all over again. Are these the WMD that got moved from Iraq to Syria before the 2003 Iraq invasion?

Viator on June 21, 2013 at 1:49 AM

As I see it Cruz is challenging Obama’s excuse in arming our enemies in a provocative fashion to stimulate debate in an open forum.

workingclass artist on June 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

I think you’re reading in between Cruz’s words to see what you want there.

“The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons,” Sen. Cruz said.

This statement could be seen as merely a rhetorical challenge, as you assert. But this quote from Cruz’s press release makes it quite clear that he’s gone beyond “words, just words…”:

We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

This is the quote that most clearly shows what Cruz is about here. This is not mere rhetoric. He’s openly advocating for an invasion of Syria. There’s no mistaking this. This is the quote that most of us are alarmed about.

And Senator Cruz, if you’re reading these threads as I know you sometimes do, there is no “clear, practical plan” to carry out what you’re proposing. Are Assad Loyalists and the various rebel factions going to be lounging around their hookahs slinging the humus as our troops saunter in and skip out? If you want to send in Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw and the rest of Force Ten, then go ahead. But please leave our soldiers out of it. Too much has been asked of them already.

sartana on June 21, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Let Muslim lunatics thin their crazy herd without our help or hindrance.

Islam is the world’s biggest Death Cult.

(You try to leave, they try to kill you.)

The sooner this laughable pseudo-religious fraud vanishes from history, the better off humanity will be.

profitsbeard on June 21, 2013 at 2:28 AM

I agree with you. I guess I just feel like getting rid of the weapons would be ideal and maybe help out Israel.

I actually thought I was a “hawk”, but honestly, now I feel like we need to just get out of that whole region and let the chips fall where they may over there as long as they are not a direct threat to us. Israel is our ally and if they need or want our help, fine, then help them… otherwise leave it alone. There is never going to be a true peace in that region.. at least not in our lifetimes.. why did we think we were any better prepared to make that happen? We are not the “world police” and I would rather see our country taking care of ourselves.. you know… like border security… but I guess that is a pipe dream..

vamp57mw on June 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM

If Syria were launching chemical weapons attacks on Israel, then it’s Israel’s call to request US intervention. Until that happens, playing the Democrat “world police” card like Clinton did back in the 1990′s (you know, the one where we intervene solely for so-called “humanitarian” reasons, without an equally strong national security interest one) is asking for disaster.

My two cents here, along with this: let Mossad off its leash to ensure Israel’s own security interests in the region. Israel will be best suited to make the determination on this issue, and unless I am completely misinformed, there is no other US national security issue at stake – unlike in the situation with Iran, where that country has repeatedly threatened US allies (Israel and Europe) by way of both provocative military actions in the Strait of Hormuz and through development of the Shahab-6 ICBM and related IRBM missiles with nuclear warheads.

Where Leftists screech for US military intervention, you’ll almost always find a corresponding lack of any significant US national security reason for doing so. The stupid side of the Left likes this action for emotive reasons, and the devious side of the Left pushes it to weaken the military and US foreign policy interests. Beware.

Wanderlust on June 21, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Academia has spoken

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 11:23 PM

*blech*

shr wld lik tuh tak yer crse sir but y see muh girl frind is prignt now

kenny on June 20, 2013 at 11:44 PM

huh?

This statement could be seen as merely a rhetorical challenge, as you assert. But this quote from Cruz’s press release makes it quite clear that he’s gone beyond “words, just words…”:

We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

This is the quote that most clearly shows what Cruz is about here. This is not mere rhetoric. He’s openly advocating for an invasion of Syria. There’s no mistaking this. This is the quote that most of us are alarmed about.

I see your point…I guess we’ll see.

workingclass artist on June 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM

My take on this is that our government is leaking false information about Assad using chemical weapons on his people in order to justify the US sending troops and going to war with Syria. Many of the Syrian rebels we would be aligning ourselves with are terrorists. This is Wag The Dog Part 2.

No, I am not a dumb conspiracy theorist and, yes, Obama and his thug regime are that devious. Obama wants a war with Syria for whatever reason rocks your boat: 1) to install the Muslim Brotherhood as leaders in yet another middle eastern country, 2) Obama is flexing his narcisstic non existing muscles in a spat with Putin (who is backing Assad), or 3), he wants to play war games on his super duper fancy NSA computer, a drone game more than likely.

Amjean on June 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I actually find this whole chemical weapons scare idiotic. They are not that dangerous of weapons, certaiinly not more dangerous than tradional missles or bombs. The irrational fear of chemical weapons is the result of very effective british propaganda from ww1.

snoopicus on June 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Cruz for President. He rocks.

dogsoldier on June 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

This is why the GOP is screwed in elections. This video and most of you are saying Cruz is like Marco and writing him off.

The left doesn’t do this, whatever a Democrat says is right, no matter what. Hillary could SAY ANYTHING and not care about people dying in Benghazi but they’ll still back her lying ass.

Wagthatdog on June 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139351/john-mueller/erase-the-red-line

This article nicely explains the iirrationality of the chem weapons scare

snoopicus on June 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM

You must be talking to someone who gives a shit what you think or have me confused with someone else. Either way, piss off.

Bmore on June 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The best way to maintain the security of the WMDs, if they’ve not already been compromised, is to let Assad pound the cr@p out of the rebels and win. Anything less than that will be a potential for disaster somewhere in the near future.

xkaydet65 on June 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I like Cruz…but the Republicans have to understand…WE ARE BROKE!!!!! We are war weary…..enough of the war hawk cry…

Redford on June 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Redford on June 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

A limited scope op to destroy the WMDs ONLY? I’ll kick in for that. Saddam had some nasty stuff.

dogsoldier on June 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM

So I take it nukes are off the table?

nobar on June 21, 2013 at 12:42 PM

“The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons,” Sen. Cruz said. “We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

This sounds extremely impractical. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were many officially-sanctioned visits by U.N. inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003, and the Iraqis managed to hide all their chemical weapons. If U.S. troops tried to find and “secure” chemical weapons in Syria without U.N. approval (Russia would certainly veto a resolution), they would have to dodge bullets from both sides of the civil war, while trying to find weapons that Assad has had decades to hide.

We’re better off letting the civil war play out without our involvement. If we’re worried about chemical weapons, we can always go after the winner after the civil war is over.

Steve Z on June 21, 2013 at 12:46 PM

In the mean time I am all to happy to see them killing each other.

Bmore on June 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Yeppers. Why the he11 do we need to stick our noses in to yet another sh1t hole? Haven’t these people figured out that you can never come out of one clean?

MJBrutus on June 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM

My take on this is that our government is leaking false information about Assad using chemical weapons on his people in order to justify the US sending troops and going to war with Syria. Many of the Syrian rebels we would be aligning ourselves with are terrorists. This is Wag The Dog Part 2.

….
Amjean on June 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Agree. I don’t think anyone should concede Obama’s right to drag the country into war where we have little interest and every chance of sparking a global confrontation with Russia. And this on some feigned outrage about “chemical” weapons. Where is the outrage of more provable genocide in North Korea, persecution of Christians in Egypt and various African nations?

It’s almost funny how the left, now that they are in power, has no use for Congress at all and the UN, their once-favored noisy-rabble, is about as relevant to world events as the Boy Scouts of America. Aren’t we supposed to have puffing and blowing about UN resolutions before we drop leaflets on foreign countries?

Obama’s foreign policy is guided simply by “blood-in-the-water”: if it looks like a government is failing, he wants to be there to hold the hand of the victor. Is that it? Really?

virgo on June 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Whoaaaa, Ted Cruz a Necon!

conservador on June 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Obama wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal. What better way than carpet bombing the middle east with them.

Dasher on June 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Yeah, we went in to do something similar in Iraq and Afghanostan. I’m absolutely opposed to any military involvement in Syria. Let them rot, and get our troops out of Jordan. No refugees either!

claudius on June 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM

It’s not like the constitution allows former green card holders to be president.

HotAirLib on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Nor does it allow for arming those who have declared war on us, such as Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, in Article III Section 3, it defines that type of action as TREASON. Of course in the past we used to take that issue seriously, and we took traitors out in the woods and shot them like the snakes they are.

dominigan on June 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2