Wednesday, September 4, 2013

RINO McCain Wants Intervention, On Expanded Terms...

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

Republican Senator John McCain, the RINO that he has turned into, has decided to oppose the Senate draft resolution on Syrian intervention because it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH in insuring America's continuing military posture in the region. Of course Mr. McCain claims he opposes boots on the ground but this is nothing more than political BS. For McCain it is quite likely the truth is "whatever it takes to topple Bashir al-Assad is his real position. And we all know how well that worked out for the nation on many fronts with Iraq, don't we?

FOX News - Sen. John McCain, President Obama's biggest cheerleader on Capitol Hill for a strike in Syria, said Wednesday that he would not support a Senate panel's draft resolution authorizing the use of force -- forcing a key Senate panel to delay a vote.

"There are a number of people who are unhappy," McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. Asked if he supported the measure, McCain said, "In its current form, I do not."

The decision was a setback for the administration's effort to win swift support from Congress for an attack. McCain's opposition, though, is likely a negotiating tactic to win more aggressive language in the resolution. McCain said Wednesday afternoon he wants to see a provision that states U.S. action must be aimed at a "reversal of momentum on the ground."

It's unclear how far the rest of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will go, with some members worried the resolution already goes too far. The committee pushed off a planned meeting and possible vote until Wednesday afternoon, though the committee's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, said he's fairly certain they can begin work on the resolution later in the day.

McCain, who has long favored stepped-up U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, said he opposes the resolution crafted by fellow Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The resolution puts a 90-day limit on action and says no American troops can be sent to Syria (Emphasis Added)... {Read More}

Hopefully saner heads prevail and the President is denied Congressional support for this yet another unjustified military intervention into another sovereign nation's civil war. Hasn't the nation wasted enough lives and treasure on the foolish notion it's our job to police the world?

Via: Memeorandum


President Obama has made it clear he has the right to intervene in Syria (exercising his executive authority) whether or not Congress gives it's approval. NICE. The War Powers Act and the Geneva Accords working in favor of the grand design to achieve that One World Order with the U.S.A. leading the way. Something the American Oligarchy has long sought to achieve. Going back to Woodrow Wilson and the failed League of Nations.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - President Barack Obama said he retains the right to order strikes against Syria even if Congress doesn't authorize them, but he is seeking approval from U.S. lawmakers because he thinks it will strengthen America's response.

"We will be stronger as a country in our response if the president and Congress does it together," Mr. Obama said at a news conference on Wednesday in Stockholm.

Asked whether he would launch strikes in Syria if Congress doesn't authorize them, the president said: "As commander in chief I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I don't believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress because I think it's an empty exercise."

What national security issue what that be Mr. President?

It certainly seems like an empty exercise. Especially so if Congress has leveler heads and votes no on authorizing unjustified military intervention.

His comments come after leading lawmakers from both parties said Tuesday they would support military action in Syria to deter the future use of chemical weapons, pushing the U.S. closer to military strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. But many of the rank-and-file lawmakers remain unswayed, and Congress could ultimately vote against military action in Syria, forcing Mr. Obama to act unilaterally.

Mr. Obama also lashed out at critics who said he boxed himself in by saying last year that if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons he would be crossing a "red line" that would prompt U.S. action. "I didn't set a red line," Mr. Obama said. "The world set a red line" when it outlawed the use of chemical weapons, he said.

"My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Mr. Obama said, referring to international laws against the use of chemical weapons.

Well Mr. President, to many who remember prior words and positions you have spoken/taken yes, your credibility is on the line.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. This guy (who I used to have a great deal of respect for) would bomb Switzerland if we let him.

  2. "The War Powers Act and the Geneva Accords working in favor of the grand design to achieve that One World Order with the U.S.A. leading the way. Something the American Oligarchy has long sought to achieve. Going back to Woodrow Wilson and the failed League of Nations."


    When everything makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, it leads back to the New World Order globalist agenda. That's why they all work on the same team.

  3. Obama isn't saying Assad is going to use the chemical weapons against us (the United Sates). If we get involved it won't be because a president lied.

  4. No, it'll just be because he incompetently backed himself into a corner and now has to save face with guys like McCain who's an even bigger warrior than him.

    1. Will, Dervie continues to try and find a "home away from home." I know you don't post his comments, or at least not many, and I fully can appreciate why. I question why I allow him to comment here. I really think it is because I feel sorry for him. That and I figure maybe if I humor him by posting his stuff, and then ignoring him otherwise he'll eventually just go away.

      But I'm now thinking probably not.

    2. As is the case with Syria, there are no easy answers.

    3. This is true, however I continue to hope we stay above this civil war in another sovereign nation and don't get drawn in. If however, we are able to determine FACTUALLY, which implies honestly that acting is indeed in our national SECURITY interests (as Obama stated) I will change my mind.

      If we intervene, and if as I suspect likely, boots ultimately hit the ground we must support our men and women in uniform and recognize they are acting on behalf of their nation. I will support them.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.