Skip to main content

First let me state that I'm against military intervention in Syria right now. I'm a strong supporter of the president, but I don't agree on this push for military action right now. I'd rather a diplomatic solution.

I opposed the war in Iraq because I knew it would become a long, drawn out costly affair. And of course it was. Now comparing Obama to Bush in this case is inaccurate because Bush was pushing for a full invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of ground troops. Obama is not pushing for this, he is just pushing for a limited air strike. It is not the same as the run up to the Iraq war.

However, my concern is that a limited air strike could escalate into something much bigger. Syria may retaliate against someone, or what if one of our fighter pilots was shot down and taken prisoner in Syria? Then we would need to send ground troops into the country to rescue him, and this could lead to a larger conflict.

If I was in the Congress, I would listen to what the president would have to say, and let him make his argument for action, but I would probably end up voting against military action at this point. It doesn't matter whether the president is a Republican or Democrat, I just tend to oppose what I feel is unnecessary military action and wars.

I opposed the Iraq war not because a Republican president was proposing it, I opposed it because I sincerely felt it was a mistake. If Bill Clinton wanted to invade Iraq back in the nineties, I would have opposed it then. But I now feel I am seeing ridiculous hypocrisy coming from Republicans on this matter.  


I believe that most of the Republicans who oppose this action are not opposing it in sincerity. They are opposing it because it is a Democratic president in the White House. We all know that if Mr. Romney was president and was proposing striking Syria in the exact same way, they would all be for it, and they would accuse anyone against it of being anti-American and unpatriotic.

Remember during the lead up to the Iraq war? All the Republicans blindly supported it and accused those who opposed it of being America haters. Now most of the Republican assholes oppose military action solely because it is a Democratic president. Now there is nothing wrong with supporting or not supporting military action in Syria. If you support it, fine. If you oppose it, fine. You have a right to your opinion. But at least be sincere about it. When the Republican senators and congressmen oppose the action PURELY BASED ON OBAMA HATE, well that's just damn hypocrisy.

In my deep red state of Louisiana all of the Republican congressmen oppose it. You can bet if Mr. Romney was president these same idiots would be all gung ho for more war, and they would be accusing any opponents of My. Romney's rush to war of being anti-American, unpatriotic and all that crap. I don't hold it against them if they oppose the possibility of strikes against Syria in good faith, but if they oppose it purely because of partisan politics, well that's pure hypocrisy.

I'm sure most of us here at the D Kos oppose the proposed Syria action. But we oppose it on good faith. We just tend to be anti-war most of the time. At least we don't blindly and unquestioningly support a Democratic president just because he's a Democrat. If we blindly supported everything a Democratic president does just because he's a democrat, well that would be hypocrisy just like the Republicans.

But of course Mr. Obama isn't proposing war with Syria, just a limited attack. But there is always the possibility that a limited attack could escalate, and that is why I would prefer a diplomatic solution. But seeing hypocritical Republicans oppose any attack on Syria solely due to partisan political reasons and Obama hate is disgusting. Of course if "President Romney" was calling for a full fledged boots on the ground invasion of Syria, the hypocrite Republicans would be all for it and accusing anyone opposed of "hating America." Their hypocrisy is just disgusting.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Disgusting? Yes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    Surprising? Not even the least little bit.

    Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

    by RamblinDave on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:51:21 PM PDT

  •  They're not opposing it because a Dem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    President is proposing it.
    They're opposing it because Obama ( black man) is proposing it.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:57:22 PM PDT

    •  Baloney (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David54, freerad

      No, I'm not denying that there's a lot of racism on the right. There is, and yes, that certainly flavors their disdain for Obama. But they would be just as hypocritical on this matter if it were President Gore or President Kerry (or any other white male you can think of) calling the shots. That Obama is black undoubtedly has an impact, as would having a female Democratic president - but that would not be the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that any president with a D after hir name can never be trusted with anything military related, under any circumstances, ever, while any Republican president not only can, but must be given a blank check.

      Honestly, my usual response to comments like yours is "You must not be old enough to remember the Clinton administration" (when a white Democratic president was treated with every bit as much disdain as Obama is, maybe more so). But if the 54 in your name refers to your year of birth, then you haven't even got that excuse.

      Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

      by RamblinDave on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:50:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, trust me on this... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan from 29, defluxion10 own Congressman, Greg Walden (R-OR2), has in the past been a staunch supporter of the AUMF and as staunch an opponent of anything that looks like withdrawal from Iraq.  He announced yesterday that he opposes military intervention of any kind in Syria...

    ...while I appreciate the basic facts of his current stance, I don't really believe that this is a principled stance based on the issues at hand. It looks more like a trap being set in hopes that the President will ignore the Will Of Congress and invite impeachment with an attack that is at odds with that Will Of Congress...  

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:58:21 PM PDT

    •  Bingo. And they don't even care if an impeachment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jack K, RamblinDave, defluxion10, freerad

      succeeds. They just want to continue delegitimizing this President and making sure he can accomplish nothing during his last three years.

    •  Therefore, work to defeat Greg Walden in 2014 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bepanda, Jack K

      I know from what I've been told Walden's Congressional District is red but it's Oregon man.  OREGON.

      •  We try, but a map doesn't tell the whole (0+ / 0-)

        story and Oregon District 2 is - while part of OREGON - primarily rural with an historically natural resource-based economy (it also is about 60-70% of the state from a geographic acreage standpoint)... doesn't have the advantage of state-wide or 'urban district' voter demographics that contribute to the governorship, both US Senate seats, and all of the other four Congressional seats being held by Democrats...

        ...but we do what we can...

        "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

        by Jack K on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:42:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's Oregon, but it's red (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Your argument here is exactly like saying the Dems ought to be able to win in Orange County, or the Republicans in Austin. It just doesn't work that way. OR-2 is very conservative, and the Dems haven't held that seat in 30 years.

        Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

        by RamblinDave on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:45:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Careful on your comparison of GOP regions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I have absolutely NO clue what the Republican base is like in Oregon in OR-02 but in Orange County, GOP voter registrations are decreasing.  That could be in a large part because the California Republican Party is as popular as dog doo-doo but it's also that California is growing more and more blue.  Also, Democrats are actually working on building a bigger base in O.C.  There are a large number of conservatives and Tea Party folks in O.C. but it's not as deep red as it used to be.

          Also, Austin is host to right wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones so it ain't deep blue either.  Well, perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath with that argument because Michael Savage is based in the Bay Area, California where I live.

          One could argue that to elect a Democrat in OR-02 would mean that Democrat would have to be a Blue Dog Democrat or a conservative Democrat.  Then again, by OR-02, is it deep red as in the following?

          1)  Tea Party folks?
          2)  Religious right?
          3)  Generally conservative folks?

          And furthermore, what are residents like in OR-02?  Are they open-minded, approachable or combative?

          •  I'll leave it up to Oregon Kossacks... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...but my understanding is, yes, OR-2 has its share of all three of the categories you asked about. It's got lots of Mormons, for one thing, and like most rural Western areas it's got tons of people who love to hate the government.

            And the O.C. may be changing, but it still hasn't supported a Democrat since FDR (and not even always him).

            Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

            by RamblinDave on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:44:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The ones who left (0+ / 0-)

            OK during the dust bowl and didn't go to CA wound up populating a lot of this area.  These are Inhofe, Coburns people who found another place to grow wheat.

          •  Only 17% of the population (0+ / 0-)

            with 67% of the land, 90% white, 35K median income.  Oregon district 02 is the seventh largest district in the nation.

  •  Yes, Republicans are hypocrites. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q

    That's a given.

    In my view, it doesn't matter what their motives are for opposing it, because it's something that should be opposed.

    So I'm not seeing much of a point in being upset at them for taking a view you agree with.

    If you're going to be bothered by their hypocrisy, there's plenty of other examples that are more deserving of outrage, imo.

    Would you prefer they embrace it and help make it happen, just so you can be sure they're at least embracing it in "good faith?"

    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:08:29 PM PDT

  •  Yes ... Yes .. Yes ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And In Oregon, we don't give a ** about these THUGS.
    Get this fool out of Congress.

  •  And now, the 180-degree-turn... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RamblinDave, Dbug, defluxion10

    Countdown until the Right Wing claims Obama should have attacked Syria immediately, and that going along with Russian diplomatic efforts "weakens" the U.S., commencing now...

  •  True to a point. But . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    First of all, I don't believe for a second that any U.S. intervention would be "limited" or short. This is a sectarian powder-keg that could easily explode, especially if the U.S. pours gasoline on the flames. Intervention now will beget more intervention later. If we do succeed in tipping the war toward the rebels & overthrowing the Assad regime, that's when things will go from bad to worse; most likely the U.S. would be impelled to intervene, with "boots on the ground" & all that that entails, in order to "secure chemical weapons stocks" or "protect civilians" or "prevent genocide" or "fight terrorism" or something else.

    Whatever the case, Obama does have a credibility problem on intervention in Syria. First it was to be just a few missiles, then (obviously as he was trying to win the backing of John McCain) it was to be a wider operation aimed at regime-change, then (trying to woo Democratic support after Republicans balked en masse) it was to be an "unbelievably small" operation, & now he's saying that "America doesn't do pin-pricks". So there's no telling what his foreign-policy inner circle really have in mind, but my guess is that the decision to go to war has already been made. But he'll say anything in order to sell it.

    As for Congressional Republicans, no doubt that their opposition is cynical in the extreme. Hypocritical too: we all remember how they enthusiastically supported the Iraq war & used it as a cudgel to whack the Democrats. We all know that if Mitt Romney were president, the U.S. would already be chest-deep in Syria & they would be his loudest backers. It's obvious that their primary motive is to humiliate President Obama. But I'm willing to make common cause with them this one time if that's what it takes to defeat the war caucus in Congress.

    Cynicism aside, perhaps Americans have finally learned some lessons after 12 years of war in the Middle East. Perhaps that's why Americans of all political persuasions have spoken out against this rush to war in Syria. It's been a beautiful thing to witness, & it is my hope that this may eventually be seen as a historical turning-point with regard to American popular attitudes toward militarism & war.

  •  Not hypocrisy, it's mere partisanship (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives are ALL about partisan politics. They always vote as a block, whoever is President, obvious FOR if he happens to be a Republican...

    And they are like that because their contributors and base are like that, and for them all, winning means everything, hence the means being irrelevant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site