I love technology, but too many Republicans either seem unaware that it exists or can’t grasp the power it has. How else can you explain the seemingly endless examples where a Republican has publicly made comments concerning a particular topic, then a few weeks later completely contradicts their previous statements?
They do this, apparently unaware that almost anyone can use Google to verify what they’ve previously said, which often contradicts what they’re currently saying.
Case in point — my old pal Senator Ted Cruz.
Just over two months ago, Senator Cruz called the situation in Syria a “threat” to the United States and our allies in the region:
“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.”
So, let me get this straight. Two months ago, Ted Cruz calls the situation in Syria a threat to our national security and our allies in the region. He then says we need to go in, locate and either secure or destroy them—then get out.
“Go in.” So he means, send troops into Syria? Because that’s pretty much what I gathered from these comments. You can’t really “secure” chemical weapons with an aerial strike, so Cruz had to have meant that the United States needed to send troops into Syria to get these chemical weapons.
So what does Senator Cruz have to say now about the situation in Syria as it relates to U.S. national security? Well, we don’t need to look any further than the op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post:
“Assad’s actions, however deplorable, are not a direct threat to U.S. national security. Many bad actors on the world stage have, tragically, oppressed and killed their citizens, even using chemical weapons to do so.”
Wait, come again?
In June, the situation in Syria did pose a threat to our allies and the United States (according to Cruz’s own words), but now it suddenly doesn’t pose a threat?
What’s changed? Oh, I know, President Obama came out in support of a military strike in Syria—something Republicans weren’t expecting him to do. Now they’re having to backtrack on their previous comments in a feverish dash to continue the Republican political philosophy of simply doing the opposite of whatever President Obama supports.
Oh, but Ted Cruz has an explanation for why he’s changed his mind:
“If the president’s proposed military strike against Assad succeeds, al-Qaeda could be strengthened and terrorists could seize control of Syria’s vast cache of chemical weapons.”
Basically, if President Obama is successful with his strikes, the rebels (some of which are backed by Islamic radicals) might seize control of Assad’s supply of chemical weapons.
Tell me this, Senator Cruz — what if the rebels are successful anyway? Do we then invade Syria and go to war with them? Because that would make much more sense, right?
Cruz’s “explanation” for his change in his position since June might sound right to those who want to support the tea party darling of the Republican party—it just doesn’t make any damn sense.
He first calls the situation in Syria a “threat” to the United States and our allies in the region, calling for the United States to go in to get these weapons. Then he comes out and opposes a military strike because it might lead to the rebels getting their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons.
Except, in neither of his responses does he clarify exactly how we would keep them out of the hands of Islamic radicals. Well I guess he does, but his “solution” would call for the United States to send troops into Syria.
So is that what Senator Cruz is calling for, sending ground forces into the middle of the Syrian civil war?
Because back in June that’s essentially what he said we needed to do.
Yet now he’s taken the stance that something should be done, just not what Obama has called for. Meanwhile, the plan he has seemingly suggested in the past is even more costly and invasive than what Obama has proposed.
After reading both articles concerning Ted Cruz’s stance on Syria, he’s said in one that the situation in Syria is a threat to the United States, only now it’s not. Then he seems to suggest that his plan for addressing the threat to the United States (in June when he called it a threat) is to send troops into Syria to “secure or destroy” the chemical weapons.
So, in June, Cruz saw this situation so dire that he would support sending our military into Syria to “secure or destroy” the chemical weapons. A threat so prevalent he insinuated that it warranted putting our brave men and women in harms way to go into Syria and get these weapons.
Yet now there’s apparently no threat to the United States.
Make sense? Because it sure as hell doesn’t to me.