Marco Rubio, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Agree on Syria in Very Different Ways
As President Obama has weighed the decision on whether or not to use military force against Syria, and is looking to rally support from Congress, Florida polticos have been somewhat silent about the issue (except for Rep. Tom Rooney, who is none too fired up about the idea of military strike against Bashar al-Assad).
But now as things are heating up, both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Marco Rubio have stepped up with respective statements.
Wasserman Schultz comes straight out and supports a military strike, while Rubio sort of does too, but mostly rips on Obama and kind of blames Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people because of Obama's leading from behind two years ago or something.
In a statement issued on Sunday, Wasserman Schultz says that Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people is "an obscenity that that cannot go unanswered."
She also points out that inaction would give Assad free reign to possibly someday use chemical weapons on neighboring nations such as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey.
"It is my firm opinion that the use of limited military force is not only warranted, but necessary to send a resolute message to Bashar al-Assad that these types of atrocities cannot, and will not be tolerated by the United States," Debbie says in her statement.
She then goes into us all being a tad war-weary, what with all the other wars our country has been engaged in and, yea, that's enough already with all the wars.
"I know that many in this country are weary of war, but each military conflict is unique. Iraq was not Bosnia, and Libya was not Afghanistan. The evidence is clear to me that Syria violated a 100-year-old international norm against use of chemical weapons as a legitimate weapon of war. Accountability for this horrific violation should be certain and severe."
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio came out with his own statement last Wednesday, where he reminded everyone that he once said Syria would be a good place for terrorists to learn how to be more terrorosty, and therefore the U.S. should have done... something... about that but now yada yada yada, President Obama is leading from behind.
"President Obama's inaction is why we are now left with an emboldened war criminal in power in Syria, willing to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians," Rubes said in his statement. "And it leaves us with a chaotic situation in much of Syria that is becoming like pre-9/11 Afghanistan, the premier operational area in the world for foreign jihadist fighters.
Because the President failed to act in the right way at the right time, we are now left with no good options. Failing to act would further embolden Assad and his Iranian sponsors, leaving the impression that America is feckless and impotent. And a limited attack would do nothing to change the dynamics of the conflict, but could trigger a broader and even more dangerous conflict in the region."
So, Rubio is all for military action, but that we should be aware he said stuff two years ago, and then goes on to give us no examples of how he'd handle things differently when Obama was "leading from behind."
Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz is suddenly all gun-ho about attacking another country.
Things should get more heated as the week goes on. Which is to say, we're probably going to go ahead and attack yet another nation in the name of Right and Might, while our Florida representatives keep on playing the game.
The more things change...