Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union I've Put Red Comments Instead of a RedLine on Your Statement About Syria: This Voice Agrees With You 80%. Hope CPAC in St. Louis Has a Good Panel on Syria. Can You Get John McCain & Ted Cruz on It? Add Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell It Will Be The Go To Event for the GOP This Year. Thanks:):) Sharyn
This was emailed to me and I really respect Al Cardenas for making such a thoughtful statement:
STATEMENT ON SYRIA BY AL CARDENAS, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION
"Members of Congress are preparing to make a tough decision on whether or not to support President Obama’s call for a punitive military strike against Syria for the use of chemical weapons against its own people.
Many Republicans encouraged military support of the Syrian rebels early on in this civil war at a time when a clear path to victory was probable (I was one of them)-- and the insurgents were independent from more radical Islamic elements. Much time has passed since; and this option -- whether advisable then or not -- is certainly unwise at this juncture.
For now the tactical and political situation has changed. The Syrian rebels contain significant Al Qaeda elements (very true). President Obama has telegraphed his intentions for retaliatory air strikes for the use of chemical weapons. In response, President Assad has reportedly scattered his remaining chemical weapons stockpiles throughout civilian neighborhoods. (Assad is a psychopath and probably did this) Many key U.S. allies have already publicly renounced participation in any U.S.-led military action. (Tony Blair is no longer RESPECTED in the UK and he needs to be quiet and not encourage military action while yachting) The only thing that President Obama HAS promised is that no U.S. soldiers will invade Syria.(thank god... members of the military tell me the ONLY war they think is justifiable is IRAN but we might need the reinstate the draft due to many of the troops already serving 4-5 tours in the Middle East) As of now.
So we must ask why a military attack that produces no regime change, cannot destroy significant amounts of chemical weapons and does nothing to further American security interests in the Middle East (and that may actually empower an Al Qaeda-led government) is possibly the right course. (I Understand the point.... Still a Holocaust is happening and it's critical to denounce the use of chemical weapons and sincerely encourage Russia to act in the best interest of the World when participating in UN sessions)
I oppose military intervention of any kind in the Syrian civil war at this time because such action would fail the 'Reagan Test.' It’s not in the vital interest of American national security. (Being a Reagan Era Cold War researcher I understand the concept of Peace through strength and believe in my heart it's the best solution for America)
I do urge the President to publically condemn Russia and Iran for their support of the reprehensible Syrian regime – even in the face of its use of genocidal weapons against its own people. (This is a VERY good statement)
But Americans should know that it was President Obama’s feckless foreign policy that led to the consideration of these “best worst options” in the first place. (America knew this and still voted for President Obama. America has "changed" and Hawks are now a minority) The only 'Red Line' that should have been drawn in the Middle East in the past four years is through President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize." (the Peace Price was premature.... & the comment a little snarky but it's pure red meat for the audience)
Many Republicans encouraged military support of the Syrian rebels early on in this civil war at a time when a clear path to victory was probable (I was one of them)-- and the insurgents were independent from more radical Islamic elements. Much time has passed since; and this option -- whether advisable then or not -- is certainly unwise at this juncture.
For now the tactical and political situation has changed. The Syrian rebels contain significant Al Qaeda elements (very true). President Obama has telegraphed his intentions for retaliatory air strikes for the use of chemical weapons. In response, President Assad has reportedly scattered his remaining chemical weapons stockpiles throughout civilian neighborhoods. (Assad is a psychopath and probably did this) Many key U.S. allies have already publicly renounced participation in any U.S.-led military action. (Tony Blair is no longer RESPECTED in the UK and he needs to be quiet and not encourage military action while yachting) The only thing that President Obama HAS promised is that no U.S. soldiers will invade Syria.(thank god... members of the military tell me the ONLY war they think is justifiable is IRAN but we might need the reinstate the draft due to many of the troops already serving 4-5 tours in the Middle East) As of now. So we must ask why a military attack that produces no regime change, cannot destroy significant amounts of chemical weapons and does nothing to further American security interests in the Middle East (and that may actually empower an Al Qaeda-led government) is possibly the right course. (I Understand the point.... Still a Holocaust is happening and it's critical to denounce the use of chemical weapons and sincerely encourage Russia to act in the best interest of the World when participating in UN sessions)
I do urge the President to publically condemn Russia and Iran for their support of the reprehensible Syrian regime – even in the face of its use of genocidal weapons against its own people. (This is a VERY good statement)
But Americans should know that it was President Obama’s feckless foreign policy that led to the consideration of these “best worst options” in the first place. (America knew this and still voted for President Obama. America has "changed" and Hawks are now a minority) The only 'Red Line' that should have been drawn in the Middle East in the past four years is through President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize." (the Peace Price was premature.... & the comment a little snarky but it's pure red meat for the audience)
Founded in 1964, the American Conservative Union (ACU) is the oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization in the nation. For almost fifty years, ACU has served as an umbrella organization harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense. ACU defines conservatism, grows conservatism, and wins for conservatism.
###
###
Comments
Post a Comment