Delegation Uncertain About Syria Strike

by Categorized: John Larson, D, Richard Blumenthal Date:

\”It\’s not an easy sell for me to consider voting for this, but I\’m trying to keep an open mind,\’\’ said Rep. Elizabeth Esty, a Democratic freshman who represents the 5th District. \”I\’m quite concerned about the \’what ifs.\’\”

Read.

\"syria

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

24 thoughts on “Delegation Uncertain About Syria Strike

  1. Billy Boggs

    We do all have a moral obligation to resist unleashing WMDs. But should the argument stop at the gates of only those who use these weapons? Can you honestly suggest that Stalin’s massacring 10 or 20 million of his own people was permissible because he didn’t use these destructive devises? And should we go to war when any nation nation decides to kill its people? Are these weapons the moral divining line between acceptability and outrage? Or is the argument now being assembled in order to justify another aggressive act.

    Personally, I can not support this while ignoring my own moral honesty about about how often we build an argument in order to justify aggression. Man is incapable of living in peace with his neighbors. That is a historical fact. We are aggressive primates of a higher order. Indeed, primates behave less aggressively.

    I am in doubt about whether we should attack Syria. It probably is the lesser of two very horrible choices. But I wouldn’t jump up pounding my chest like a gorilla. There is already a regional conflict occurring. Soon, there may be a greater regional conflict. In the madness leading to attack, if Arab nations do not come forth with financing and indeed army units of their own and willing to put the prestige of their nations on the line, than I am against attacking regardless of the moral questions that I expressed.

    And one last clinker to throw into the wheels of aggression on WMD. It has been agreed that wrapping little bombs into a big bomb which when exploded, sends hundreds of bomblets to maim and kill at large. Women and children. These too are known as WMD. And Israel used these weapons against Lebanese in a war and why the absence of outrage? Do we select our outrage based on who is performing the deed? It is just something to think about. If you are to be morally outraged over WMD, than should you not also have the moral honesty to be outraged over any use of such weapons?

    1. Kim

      lee: I’m sure it was a mistake, but ‘leadership’ is not a word that we can ascribe to anything that Obama has done. Campaigning? Yes. Leading? Not a chance. You are right not to trust him

      1. Billy Boggs

        ya, let’s go back to the good old days when W Bush gave you and others a good bend over based on real lies.

        1. Kim

          Bush is not the president any more billy. Time to move on and make the messiah do his job, instead of holding him to a lower standard based on previous administrations.

          Did you vote for Obama because he promised to be as poor a president as Bush? No, you believed his propaganda – er, campaign promises. Now that he’s underperforming you want everyone to accept his weaknesses and inability to lead simply because others may have gotten away with it? That poor reasoning at best, and simple excuses at worst. But then, isn’t that the liberal way? Don’t take responsibility for your actions (or, in his case, inactions) and blame everyone else for NOT doing your own job.

          1. Billy Boggs

            Wrong Kimmie. I votd for Obama as a protest vote. Guess who was his demented opponent.

            Now what do you have to say.

          2. Billy Boggs

            BYW: it will never be time to move on from the worst president in the history of our country. We will all die before all the damage he did is undone.

          3. Kim

            Always skirting the issue/question billy. Time to put on your big boy pants, admit you voted a clown into office and start holding him accountable instead of blaming Obama’s poor performance on Bush. It’s easy billy. It’s called honesty. Just say “I voted for Obama and he sure is screwing things up” instead of trying to divert attention to Bush, as usual

            And if you’re talking about the worse president in US history, Obama is clearly your man. He took that title away from Carter (you probably voted for him too – quite a track record you’ve got going)

          4. Billy Boggs

            No, I voted for Ford. So much for being able to predict another person’s behavior.

            and what do you think happened to W Bush when he claimed that the bruise on his face resulted from falling out after a pretzel got stuck in his throat while watching TV alone. right. What happened is that Laura caught him lying to him after finding bite marks on his dangle from one of Condi Rice’s fandangos on her knees and Laura threw something at him.

            That’s your man.

            I don’t have a major problem with Obama. After all, he pushed through The Affordable Healthcare Act.

  2. johngaltwhereru

    Billy,

    Come on now. You can admit that Obama is nothing like advertised, can’t you?

    Obama is a man who is about to unilaterally engage in a war that has nothing to do with the United States, without Congressional approval, against the wishes of the UN, the vast majority of US Citizens and nearly all of our allies and enemies, just because he has to overcome his ignorant off-teleprompter remark about red-lines.

    As for ObamaCare, can’t you see it can’t even be implemented? Can’t you see that favored groups have to be exempted? Can’t you see everyone from Unions to Wall Street are bashing it? Can’t you see that private insurance premiums are skyrocketting?

    Increased taxes on people making under $250K. Yep. All over ObamaCare.

    Legitimate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Nope. More of a unilateral war monger than Bush ever dreamed of being.

    You may like what Obama pretends to be and says he is, but that is at direct odds with his actual actions.

    1. Billy Boggs

      Galt: I am not totally happy with Obama as I mentioned in other posts. He never should have been given the Nobel prize. He shouldn’t have accepted it. Obamacare needs major repair and frankly, it doesn’t go far enough. Try single payer as a more workable option.

      As I Ha e opined before on Syria, for me it is a flip of a coin. If you could vote for me, I would give you my vote. I could easily argue in favor. I could easily argue against. It is a horrible situation there. If our foreign policy didn’t destabilize the Middle East under W. Bush after the invasion of Iraq thereby handing the nation to the Shias, the situation may not be so dire today. So it was your freaken republican that did this one.

      Congressional approval? Do you have you big fat head buried in the sand somewhere, Dr Galt, LOL? I love that way the appearance of chemical imbalance forces one to throw everything at an argument like you do. What part of this Congressional debate don’t you get, Dr. know It All?

      But I admit, you do add a bit of froth to these boards so don’t be so invisible.

      Another art show in DC coming up. If you were in town, I would tell you where.

  3. Johngaltwhereru

    Billy,

    Debate and approval are not synonymous. When both Houses of Congress approve of the action, the way Congress and Hillary did for Iraq, that is approval. I will be surprised and disgusted with any politician who votes for this nonsense, especially the hypocrites that railed against the Iraq War.

    As for the biggest moron of all in this debate, and the best argument against Representative Democracy, a quote from Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): “I am opposed to military intervention in Syria, but I will vote for it to support President Obama. The only way Democrats will will vote yes is based on loyalty. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”

    What a pos. She would vote to allow the US to kill people in their own Country, unprovoked and unthreatened, (Pure Bush Doctrine according to Liberals), despite the fact that she thinks it is wrong, just to stop Obama from being exposed for the ignorant Foreign Policy bafoon that he is.

    Actually, pos is far too nice of a description. She is an accomplice to murder for the sole purpose of maintaining someone else’s rapidly shrinking gravitas.

    Maybe if she combined some beastiality and child molestation, she could really spruce up her Karma.

    1. Billy Boggs

      Galt: she simply showed party loyalty like all the pig-headed conservatives did when they resisted Obamacare for the main reason to bring Obama down. And that was the overheard statement on the republican side. So the arsehole republicans were working bor the best interests of America by wanting to bring down Obama instead of compromising. There was no compromise. The stinking and stupid side of American politics.

      So my sweet little Eleanore said a bad. Well spank her little butt.

      That last line denigrates you, you know. It makes you a nut. But then again, we are all nuts on these boards.

      Again, if we didn’t have the long shadow of W Bush, going into Syira would have been a piece of cake. It is a real need. Iraq was Bush’s private war to avenge his daddy. Just a notice for next time Galt, when you feel a need to vote for anyone republican.

      And speaking of, yes or no, did you vote for W Bush? I just want to hear how an educated man voted for a most ignorant man so ignorant that he can’t even complete a sentence. He does have a tough time with the English language.

      So did you vote for him?

      1. Johngaltwhereru

        Opposing a bad law, which the vast majority of Republicans opposed due to the fact that it was a bad law, is not remotely comparable to opposing a war with no goal, no chance of success and no benefit to the US citizens. Sorry, they are in 2 different leagues.

        Bush, while I did not like him, or vote for him, did nowhere near the level of damage to this Country as Obama. Excluding opinion, and using hard data and metrics, Obama is worse at every turn.

        Economically and on Foreign Policy, Obama is easily one on the 4 worst Presidents of all time, and Bush is not one of the other 3.

        On another issue, I can’t wait for the 2016 election cycle when the Republican Presidential candidate runs constant commercials of Hillary praising Assad, a mass murdering dictatorial thug, as a “reformer”. They should pair nicely with commercials of her lying about Benghazi and praising Obama, who’s approval ratings will be in the 30’s by that point. By 2016, Obama’s support will be limited to the different groups of self perceived victims, and terribly uniformed voters.

        In answer to your question, I did not vote for Bush either time. Up until 2008, I voted Libertarian or nothing every election.

          1. Kim

            As usual billy boggs approves of Obamas’ performance based on ……what? Because someone else was worse or did the same thing!! And he has the audacity to claim that he is a person of reason, and speaks about ‘moral obligations’. Then, when out-reasoned by JG, he resorts to his tried-and-false pattern of personal attacks and name-calling.

            Admitting that Obama shouldn’t have been given – or accepted – the Nobel Prize is a long way from forthcoming on Obama as a whole.

            When you can’t be honest with yourself, billy, it’s easy to see why you can’t be honest with the rest of us on these boards.

          2. Kim

            sure billy, I’ll tell you why I voted for Bush as soon as you responded the the question I have asked you several times lately: How do you propose that honest American citizens defend themselves in the real world today (both on the homefront and out in public), against armed home invaders, rapist, muggers, car jackers, etc., given your anti-second amendment position? What tools and methods do you approve of and believe will work against barbarians who are armed to the teeth with guns? If you can answer honestly without sidestepping or spinning the issue with nonsense like ‘we’re not attacked by Indians any more’, then I’ll tell you why I voted for Bush

          3. Johngaltwhereru

            Billy,
            While I did not vote for Bush, I will tell you why he was a far superior choice to Gore and Kerry.

            Gore’s hypocritical punk ass’s entire existence is based on the lie that if we redistribute wealth worldwide and in the US, we will save the world from certain global warming based death. He does this while flying around the world in a private jet and selling his TV channel to a King who’s fortune comes from sole ownership of the country’s oil.

            It’s means Gore is either dumb enough to believe his own propaganda, or he is manipulating the ignorant masses through blatant lies. Either way he does not stand by his own beliefs if there is a personal profit to be had. At least Bush did not waiver from his beliefs, regardless of what you think of those beliefs.

            Kerry, the loudest mouth in the Senate against the Iraq War, after he voted for it, thought Assad was a reformer. That is just one of several topics in which he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is a proven liar. He is an outrageous hypocrite almost on the level of Obama. He called for the impeachment of Bush if he went to war without Congressional approval, yet says Obama is fully within his rights to do the same. His partisanship rises well above his concern for the Country and what is in the best interest of the country. Bush was way far from being such an ideologue. A real Conservative would have never passed Medicare Part D or TARP.

  4. Brian C. Duffy

    Democrats who opposed either of the two Iraq wars but support bombing Syria are hypocrites (this includes Obama).

    Conversely, Republicans who supported either Iraq campaigns, but oppose Obama on Syria are idiots, too.

    I ask the same questions (with answers) about Assad, that I did about Saddam:

    Would the world be a safer place if Assad was dead? Absolutely.

    Is it worth a single U.S. soldier’s life to kill him? Absolutely not.

    1. Johngaltwhereru

      Brian,

      I agree with much of what you said.

      However, I question why Republicans who supported Iraq and not Syria are idiots. Is it impossible for people to learn from the mistakes of history and have their thinking “evolve”.

    2. Connecticut is circling the drain

      I don’t necessarily believe the world will be safer with Assad dead. Look to the post Hussein Iraq and the post Mubarak Egypt for clues. Were these guys brutal dictators? Of course. But is the region and world safer now that they are gone? Questionable. The Muslim bros and Al Quida are rushing in to fill the vacuum. Is that the right answer? I think not.

      Killing 100,000 in Syria is beyond belief. Killing 1,000 more by chemical weapons isn’t reason enough to risk destabilizing the region even more.

  5. private home tuition

    I have got entertaining together with, cause I uncovered just what I’m taking a look for. You’ve got wrapped up this 4 time extensive look! Lord Thank you guy. Possess a terrific evening. Ok bye

Comments are closed.