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

Cruz’ very well established conservative creds go down quickly!
-13 points.

astonerii on June 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

What is the obsession? Please stay out of another country! We need to invade 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, not Syria! I’m being targeted now lol

nyclakerfan on June 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

It would be awfully ironic, would it not, if Obama got us into a war in Syria on the basis that Assad has weapons of mass destruction — and then we never find any.

Pilgrimsarbour on June 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Stay out of Syria!

As much as I like Cruz, his idea is utterly insane. You talk about stirring a Hornet’s nest, and accomplishing nothing, but more hatred of us, and making a situation where that would not be our only military move. We would be committed to an insane conflict. Insane!

anotherJoe on June 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

They will just ship them back into Iraq, where they came from.

tom daschle concerned on June 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Assad’s WMDs??? You mean Sadaam’s Hussein’s WMDs. You know, the ones they “snuck” out of Iraq via a giant convoy.

txhsmom on June 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

What is the obsession? Please stay out of another country! We need to invade 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, not Syria! I’m being targeted now lol

nyclakerfan on June 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

This. We have domestic enemies that need to be dealt with first.

Besides one just doesn’t simply walk into Syria.

LaughterJones on June 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

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.”

Yes, because the middle ground is where you want our troops put in danger for. How about we only send our troops out when we have solid ground!?!

astonerii on June 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

No, let’s not go into Syria and destroy their chemical weapons. Once we’re there, it’s guaranteed Obama will keep us there, turning Syria into another welfare program and the military into Meals on Wheels.

Liam on June 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Has anyone thought about this scenario :
Hussein sends in our troops into Syria to be killed by Russians and Iranians AFTER the troops secure the chemical weapons that is,
then he sells these weapons to the highest bidder ?

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM

You go and do it Ted. Bring Marco and John and Lindsey with you and leave them there.

VorDaj on June 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM

t would be awfully ironic, would it not, if Obama got us into a war in Syria on the basis that Assad has weapons of mass destruction — and then we never find any.

Pilgrimsarbour on June 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

THIS

Dasher on June 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Thermobarics, that’s the ticket. And if a few manage to accidentally land off target, say in the middle of both a large Syrian army and Jihadi rebel formation, well then so be it.

Bishop on June 20, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Assad’s WMDs??? You mean Sadaam’s Hussein’s WMDs. You know, the ones they “snuck” out of Iraq via a giant convoy.

txhsmom on June 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Wouldn’t it be fun to ask the Courtiers of Islamic Administration to explain how Assad got all these chemical weapons ?

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:13 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

Dude, STFU. You know jacksh*t bout Syria. You’re starting to drift towards the McCain/Rubio bandwagon. Like they say: Sometimes, silence is golden.

tommy71 on June 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM

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

Let’s not.

If we have to jump in the middle of a civil war, can’t we find some pro West, pro Freedom and pro Market rebels to help?

Are we really going to back the cannibals?

BoxHead1 on June 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. http://youtu.be/AG7LjVCj50Y

Again this is unnecessary and will cause more US deaths for no gain. Let our enemies kill each other. Stay out of it.

LaughterJones on June 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Thermobarics, that’s the ticket. And if a few manage to accidentally land off target, say in the middle of both a large Syrian army and Jihadi rebel formation, well then so be it.

Bishop on June 20, 2013 at 6:13 PM

That’s called a win-win-win.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I like the meme of narrowly targeting our interests. So if Pakistan falls to jihadists, this will give us the precedent to say “we’re just going to go in, dismantle their nuclear force, and then leave”. I’m probably naive, because the whole point of nuclear weapons is so no one dares to invade you. But Pakistan is full of crazy Muslims, and if they take control, we really ought to go in and remove their nukes.

Paul-Cincy on June 20, 2013 at 6:17 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

So the guy who runs guns and money for drug cartels and jihadis all over the world will not sell these WMDs to his jihady bretheren ? Really ?

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Cruz may just be stroking a two bank shot here. A little more pressure on The One?

a capella on June 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Let both sides bleed each other for as long as possible (see i.e.: Iran v. Iraq war ).

SMACKRUNNER on June 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Depends what Cruz is saying, and I’m not going to listen to a 13 min clip right now.

If he’s saying Alpha Strikes wherever and whenever then do it, boots on the ground and some Blackhawk Down type of convoy being shredded as it tries to evac weapons from Syria, then egads no.

Bishop on June 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I just posed the question dude. Don`t get all pi$$y on me.

ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

two points….

- first, the tea party remaining “hawks on balance” is grossly overestimated. if anything, we/they have become more libertarian by the day since their emergence… especially with the revelations in the past month or two.

- second, i don’t think hardly anyone in america wants to see any boots on the ground in syria. if cruz’s plan can be executed with only air strikes it’s probably the best option. at least make it a fair fight, so all syrians are focused on each other rather than israel and/or the wishes of iran.

dbilly76 on June 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Certainly we should consider going into Iran and dismantling THEIR nukes. Though, supposedly, they don’t have any as of yet. Military force? Sure. Why not! Remember the 444 days in 1979-80. Let’s do it.

Paul-Cincy on June 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

What is wrong with these people???

Just about the time some elected official starts to make sense, they open their mouths and blow it.

Senator Cruz…try to remember that Serenity Prayer thing, for goodness sake.

To wit: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

The United States has no business trying to solve all the problems of the world. Hell, we cannot even get close to solving all the problems within our own borders. Noble as it may sound to you, there is nothing noble in sending Americans into harms way for stupid reasons.

Syria is not our problem to solve, chemical weapons or no chemical weapons.

We had a chance, many years ago, to make a difference with no boots on the ground at all…but our glorious leader screwed the pooch on that one…big time.

Our men and women in uniform are too precious an asset to fritter them away, even one or two of them, for ventures such as you suggest.

Find the wisdom, Senator…but stop trying to impress folks with your new-found ability to “do something” regardless of long term costs.

coldwarrior on June 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I love this meme, of going in for the sole reason of dismantling WMD, and then leaving. Awesome.

Paul-Cincy on June 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

You go and do it Ted. Bring Marco and John and Lindsey with you and leave them there.

VorDaj on June 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM

LOL! I just had a mental picture of them stopping at a roadside gas station and Cruz driving away when the others were buying junk food.

kim roy on June 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Also, lets arm the Christians to the teeth!

SMACKRUNNER on June 20, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Wrong on the NSA and now VERY wrong on Syria…….

My support of Cruz has dropped from 100% to 85%.

Not good.

PappyD61 on June 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Ted had a good run on Hot Air. As usual, someone says ONE thing to the dislike of many and he`s a scoundrel who should be hung.

ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I just posed the question dude.
ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

So did I
:O

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

coldwarrior on June 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Bingo.

VorDaj on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

The problem is I doubt Assad is stupid enough now to keep them in one spot, otherwise Israel would have already gone after them.

The is other problem is if you do find them and hit them, you may take them all out, leaving open the possibly that they might fall into the hands of Jihadist Sunni forces.

The sad truth is the chemical weapons are safer in the hands of Assad’s forces than in the hands of the opposition forces. Assad will use them to protect himself, not waste them in some small attempt to get back at the U.S. He is not going to attack Israel or Turkey or the U.S. with them because he knows that will be signing his and the Alawites death certificate. Assad, thug he may be, but a rational thug. He is not like the completely irrational lunatics on the other side who are eating people’s hearts and talking about waging war until Islam is the only religion earth.

I think Cruz is a smart guy, he is no Neo-Con, and he does point to the only danger to the U.S. in Syria, which is the chemical weapons, but I believe that by attacking Assad in anyway, even his Chemical weapon’s stores as Cruz suggests, we are assisting the lunatics win and might end up giving the very thing we don’t want them to have….the chemical weapons. I think that is bad policy.

If we were really smart and devious, we would make a deal with Assad. If he turns over his Chemical Weapons to us, we will guarantee that the Alawites and the Christians get a state of their own in Syria and we will give them conventional weapons to protect them from the Sunnis. That would be a better plan, although I think the best plan is still to stay out of it let the Russians play map maker. This is not our fight.

William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Shhhh… Obama is resting today. Take away his teleprompter and he hides

Can we take away TOTUS forever?

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Ted had a good run on Hot Air. As usual, someone says ONE thing to the dislike of many and he`s a scoundrel who should be hung.

ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

We aren’t hanging him. We are just taking him out to the woodshed for a little ‘talk’.

VorDaj on June 20, 2013 at 6:25 PM

BTW , what does BiteMe have to say about sending troops to Syria ?
He seems to be awfully quiet ;-)

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:26 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

Other countries hostile to the US have WMDs of one sort or another: Iran and North Korea come immediately to mind. I don’t see anyone recommending airstrikes or boots on the ground against either of those two countries even though Iran still holds the distinction of being the greatest sponsor of terror in the world. So why don’t we invade? Because the cost in men and materiel and the political fallout that would result from such a conflict even if war objectives are attained.

Ted Cruz also seems to forget a few important considerations when he held forth on the Syrian conflict, which is the presence of Russian and Iranian military personnel (many of whom would likely be positioned near or at Assad’s WMD sites). How do you suppose Putin would react if a number of his troops and technicians are killed in a raid on a Syrian WMD site? He would be obligated to respond militarily in order to maintain power. Strongman dictators aren’t dictators for long if they don’t appear, well, strong.

And so on. This thing has the potential to escalate in fearful directions. Now is not the time for political grandstanding.

troyriser_gopftw on June 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Reagan was wrong about getting the Marines in Beirut and it cost over 250 soldiers their lives…..

STAY OUT of Middle East wars…….we’re not the freaking Crusaders are we?

How about we just encourage the Shia and Sunni to keep killing each other???

PappyD61 on June 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Correction above…

“The is other problem is if you do find them and hit them, you may NOT take them all out, leaving open the possibly that they might fall into the hands of Jihadist Sunni forces.”

William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Send in Boris, Henri, Maverick, and Ted. lol!

Blake on June 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I’d think we could do it with very little ground involvement, probably no more special forces than we already have over there. Israel has the intelligence – we could probably destroy the majority of it with a few ground-targeted air strikes.

Anything that destroys weapons in the region is a win, especially at minimal risk to our people; sending more arms, or allowing the Russians, Iranians, Qataris or others to send more arms, is a loss.

notropis on June 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Well, if they can’t play nice, might as well take their toys away. It might be humbling. Can radical Muslims be humbled???

ndanielson on June 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I think Cruz means Iraq’s chemical weapons.

Egfrow on June 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil one and a cause for humanitarian concern as a universal right.

Instead of arming a ‘faction’ why not arm all the people as a humanitarian cause?

Let them figure it out.

As for the chemical weapons… a few bunker-busters and tacnukes ought to take care of them, no sweat. No boots on the ground. Arm the people. Make the world safe for conventional warfare!

ajacksonian on June 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Question for policy and military hawks:

When Putin declares his support for Assad and Obama declares his support for the rebels (islamists)… where exactly does the US stand at this moment? We know his trip to the G-8 was a complete flop and embarrassment for our Nation yet again.. But I dunno. Isn’t this an open challenge by Putin and an acceptance by Obama?

/sorry if I sound stupid, don’t mean to.. just asking. Thanks.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Thump ‘em ’till they want to play nice.

ndanielson on June 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Yep.

One just has to look to Libya to see what happens when we decide to go into a situation in which we have no business…and we helped arm and strengthen Al-Qaeda in the Maghrib in the process.

Making a not perfect situation into a complete and utter disaster is not “smart power.” It is utter stupidity writ large.

coldwarrior on June 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Correction above…

“The is other problem is if you do find them and hit them, you may NOT take them all out, leaving open the possibly that they might fall into the hands of Jihadist Sunni forces.”
William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

But Obama says he will arm the Islamists / Rebels.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM

No, No, No!

Senator Cruz, please, allow me to introduce you to The Mo Doctrine:

1) The United States should only get involved in conflicts abroad where there is a direct and imminent threat to the nation and its security.

2) The United States should stay out of civil wars.

3) If war is declared upon us, CRUSH, and I mean C-R-U-S-H, the enemy.

As the ever-helpful MarshFox reminded me:

“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”

- Conan the Barbarian

4) Fight to win or stay home.

5) The United States has an abysmal record of siding with despots, arming radical extremists and terrorists, and propping up tinpot dictators. Know your enemy, your “ally,” recognise self-determination, and MYOB.

(No installing new governments then “finding out who or what is in it”)

6) Unless the United States is under attack or imminent threat of attack, the President must get Congressional approval for all actions involving military operations abroad pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11 and the War Powers Resolution Act.

7) When people want to kill each other, let them.

Postcards From Syria (Photo Essay)

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

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Cruz is right. Lets not fall for the leftist, muslim-cuddling fantasy that we are only at war with the islamo-fascist movement because we’ve been mean to them. Staying out of Syria is by no means a save option that would protect us from the hornets.

Valkyriepundit on June 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

What are the risks of dropping high explosives on a bunker full of Sarin-filled bombs and missile warheads? I don’t think those things will just go boom. What will Obama, and now Cruz, say if there’s a massive release of nerve gas that makes Bhopal seem minor by comparison?

Liam on June 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM

What is it with the Middle East? It’s like a festering sore these guys can’t quit picking at. Our military is tired, they have been fighting for over a decade. Enough, Senator.

Panther on June 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM

“The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

LOL! He forgets, Zer0 is P0TUS.

kirkill on June 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Ted had a good run on Hot Air. As usual, someone says ONE thing to the dislike of many and he`s a scoundrel who should be hung.

ThePrez on June 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I don’t think what he said was wrong or what you said was wrong either. We can’t just “hope” the really bad guys don’t get their hands on them. Hell, those are the guys that barky wants to help. Cruz is floating ideas, thats all.

VegasRick on June 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM

What will Obama, and now Cruz, say if there’s a massive release of nerve gas that makes Bhopal seem minor by comparison?

Liam on June 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I dunno about Cruz but I know what Obama will say —
alahuakbar Obama rahbar !!!!

burrata on June 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM

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

BETTER SOLUTION: Have the antisemitic OBOZO regime stop kicking Israel in the balls, and kindly ask them to efficiently and effectively do it – as ONLY they can !!!!!

TeaPartyNation on June 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Let Allah sort them out. Good advice Ted. Shoulda taken it.

renalin on June 20, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Wow.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I could get to like this Cruz guy.

Count to 10 on June 20, 2013 at 6:43 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

I seriously doubt that if Cruz were president, that he would launch such an operation – HOWEVER, since obama has unilaterally decided to get involved, Cruz is correct that it should be a limited, surgical operation, but of course, it won’t be.

Unfortunately, obama’s singular goal is to install a new muslim brotherhood “government” in Syria – this is going to be a disaster, just like everything else that obama does.

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM

No no no Ted Cruz. Please don’t morph into a Rubio!

MaiDee on June 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Everything old is new again. Aren’t these the same WMD that we went into Iraq to irradicate?

So, they got shipped in Russian convoys to Syria. And now we go in to secure them again. Meanwhile Russia is putting its foot down saying, “We have nowhere else left to hide them, so we’re arming Assad with SS-300s.”

And Cruz is promising that this is a quick and easy in-and-out, against a Russian-supported regime. As if.

Iraq lite.

flicker on June 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Epic fail, Mr. Cruz.

You’ve got a few more issues not to screw up, but you’ve just screwed the pooch on this one.

It’s called National Sovereignty. If we don’t recognize that other nations are secure in that concept, then we’ve given up the notion of our own sovereignty and this is already coming to bear on us.

Assad is the legitimate recognized ruler of Syria and has a right and a duty to his citizens to put down a violent revolt- especially considering who the rebels are.

How long before we have “international monitors” patrolling our streets due to complaints from “immigrants rights” groups. That is exactly where we are headed.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 6:51 PM

It would be awfully ironic, would it not, if Obama got us into a war in Syria on the basis that Assad has weapons of mass destruction — and then we never find any.

Pilgrimsarbour on June 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Except that if that were to happen, someone somehow would find WMAs somewhere.

HiJack on June 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM

I seriously doubt that if Cruz were president, that he would launch such an operation – HOWEVER, since obama has unilaterally decided to get involved, Cruz is correct that it should be a limited, surgical operation, but of course, it won’t be.

Unfortunately, obama’s singular goal is to install a new muslim brotherhood “government” in Syria – this is going to be a disaster, just like everything else that obama does.

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I think Cruz is trying to move the debate to something better and more logical because it obvious the idiotic president we have is hell bent on his “wag-the-dog” moment. Cruz is trying to push us to something that at least sounds more logical. I still think it is wrong, but not as god awful as what is being pushed now. Basically he is saying, “please Mr. President, if you are going to do this no matter what, at least do it for something that might be useful and not pie and sky stupid stuff”.

I doubt it will work and I don’t think Obama is listening…

William Eaton on June 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM

probably a bad idea unless we know exactly where they are (good luck w/ that).

crrr6 on June 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Cruz is a ninja!

“Strike hard and fade away…without a trace.”

thebrokenrattle on June 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

HOWEVER, since obama has unilaterally decided to get involved, Cruz is correct that it should be a limited, surgical operation, but of course, it won’t be.

-Pork-Chop on June 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Not to be snippy, but this is the same convoluted logic that’s lead us to where we are now.

One party, in this case the Democrats, proposes some insane plan or legislation that will clearly lead to disaster. In response, the Repubics “solution” is to manage the disaster with a slightly less insane and destructive version of the original. The “we can manage this mess better” approach.

We have no business in Syria.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Man, Hot Air commenters have become hysterical in the past year. Every word by a politician is treated like Armageddon. Cruz is taking a position on the issue, that’s it. He doesn’t have the power to make it happen and he knows this is a “perfect world” scenario, but just the fact that he uttered it and HA turns into crazy town. Buck up, buttercups.

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

HOWEVER, since obama has unilaterally decided to get involved, Cruz is correct that it should be a limited, surgical operation, but of course, it won’t be.

-Pork-Chop on June 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM

This is the same convoluted logic that’s lead us to where we are now.

One party, in this case the Democrats, proposes some insane plan or legislation that will clearly lead to disaster. In response, the Repubics “solution” is to manage the disaster with a slightly less insane and destructive version of the original. The “we can manage this mess better” approach.

We have no business in Syria.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Bomb it to the stone age.
Secure the Weapons.
Salt the land.
Leave.

portlandon on June 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Keep it even. Thin the herd. Buy popcorn.

Ronnie on June 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

No going into Syria. Uh-uh.

If it looks like something bad might get out of there, I say we nuke the whole thing from orbit, just to be sure.

Nobody would miss it, anyway.

trigon on June 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

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

You have no business living in a representative democracy is this is how you think.

Cruz reports to us. He’s taken a position most of us strongly oppose and we’re letting him know it. And we’re being very clear about the why of it. If he doesn’t fix this, it will add up to him getting fired for another who can follow directions.

If you don’t like this process, then sit your mud-muffins down on your fatasz couch and chomp on your cheetos and let us sort this out.

Got that, sweetcakes?

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Yeah, I like Cruz, but no. Just no.

Midas on June 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM

You should probably actually read what I wrote. You were exercising free speech and I was in doing the same in reaction to yours. For that “I don’t belong in a representative democracy”? I’m not saying you shouldn’t say what you’ve said...have at it! I was merely saying you are irrational and not deep thinker…and based on this recent comment, a complete moron. Got that, sweet-cheeks!

Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

ManWithNoParty on June 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Foreign born Cruz knows he needs to be a war hawk in order to raise the kind of money needed to win a republican primary. No way an isolationist wins a republican primary. Ask Ron Paul. Then again I don’t know why he’s wasting his time. It’s not like the constitution allows former green card holders to be president.

HotAirLib on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”

- Conan the Barbarian

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

I often repeat that quote to friends, but I’ve always attributed it to Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

Conan? Seriously? Can I get a reputable cite on that?

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Iran will just send another shipment over the border. why do we care what happens over there? leave the sunnis and shia to battle it out amongst themselves, there is not a side to support in the middle east.

burserker on June 20, 2013 at 7:19 PM

“Foreign born Cruz”

HotAirLib on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Typical racist comment.

notropis on June 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I’m not saying you shouldn’t say what you’ve said…

-Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

You most certainly were. People have been very specific about why they oppose action against Syria, yet you take no time to address a single one the rational objections- you attack us merely for expressing our our opposition. You need to look over you own comments before you post them.

Mr. Rosegen. And you should keep you hands clean from all that dirty gambling.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

notropis on June 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

He was totally debunked the other night, the applicable laws quoted to him. He just wants to disrupt the thread and irritate people. It’s all he does; he’s an abusive personality.

Liam on June 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

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

Said the same thing to Barack before he went into Libya.

Resist We Much on June 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

What if we can’t find any? It’s happened before.

myiq2xu on June 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

It would be awfully ironic, would it not, if Obama got us into a war in Syria on the basis that Assad has weapons of mass destruction — and then we never find any

Sure, because by that time he’d have ‘em all moved back to Iraq.

hawkeye54 on June 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Here you go.

Christien on June 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Were you a member of the Dixie Chicks? Because you have their grasp of free speech and censorship. You should really try Little Green Footballs. More your speed. All disagreement is banned.

Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 7:28 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 Constitution doesn’t allow for forcing citizens to purchase something either, but it didn’t stop you domestic terrorists from foisting it on us.

So even if this were true, which it isn’t, either way you would still present an intellect equal to that of a doorstop.

Bishop on June 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Yeah, I like Cruz, but no. Just no.

No, a thousand times, no. We have no reasons of national interest in being involved…..only Barry has an interest in creating another muslim run country surrounding Israel, and hundreds of thousands more muslim refugees welcomed here at our expense so eventually we can become another muslim run country. We’re part way there. We’ve already got the leadership established in the WH for it.

hawkeye54 on June 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Another neocon outs himself.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Sarah has the best policy out there as far as concerning Syria: “Let Allah sort it out”

journeymike on June 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM

If we could fly in there, take out the weapons and fly out, I would say go for it. Unfortunately I don’t think it would work out that way. So my gut says no… let’s just get out of the way and let those America hating SOB’s kill each other. We don’t need to lose any more of our folks in wars/situations that we have no business being in. They’ve been killing each others for centuries..let them keep at it.

vamp57mw on June 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Another neocon outs himself.

nottakingsides on June 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Ted Cruz just got “outted by duh Left and ErrBama Voterz”

Rut Roh. I don’t think that “Ted” can recover from this revelation of Truth to Powah.

/dork

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 7:42 PM

If we could fly in there, take out the weapons and fly out, I would say go for it. Unfortunately I don’t think it would work out that way. So my gut says no… let’s just get out of the way and let those America hating SOB’s kill each other. We don’t need to lose any more of our folks in wars/situations that we have no business being in. They’ve been killing each others for centuries..let them keep at it.

vamp57mw on June 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Son, there used to be a day when America had a reliable, faithful, life long ally called Israel.

But.. Obama. Well, ya know.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Jim-Rose on June 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

You need to take responsibility for your foolish statements.

People have been consistent in their opposition to intervention in Syria and have been very specific as to why they oppose it. Even so on this very thread. Yet you addressed none of the rational arguments that have been made; characterizing any displeasure as “hysterical”.

If you support intervention in Syria, then state why and how. If you have problems with arguments put forth here against that intervention, then lay out why.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion other than sniping from the peanut gallery and telling us that Cruz is “Conservative enough” and we should not express displeasure with his proposals then just stay on your couch and let the adults sort this out.

“Shut up… he explained.” is not an argument.

Mr. Rose, why are you opposed to the power of National Sovereignty.

sartana on June 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

No, a thousand times, no. We have no reasons of national interest in being involved…..only Barry has an interest in creating another muslim run country surrounding Israel, and hundreds of thousands more muslim refugees welcomed here at our expense so eventually we can become another muslim run country. We’re part way there. We’ve already got the leadership established in the WH for it.

hawkeye54 on June 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM

We don’t want to believe what we know is a fact. But it is a fact.

Hang on.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2