McCain Syria Fox and Friends

Not interested in a bombing campaign in Syria? Do you wonder about the motivations of rebels who scream “Allahu Akbar” during battle? If so, then Sen. John McCain might get cranky with you because he’s been to Syria and he knows — they’re “moderates.”

Here’s what Sen. McCain said on Fox and Friends in response to a question by Brian Kilmeade:

“Would you have a problem with an American person saying, ‘Thank God! Thank God!?'” McCain said.

“That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims. But they’re moderates, and I guarantee you they are moderates. I know them and I’ve been with them. For someone to say, ‘Allahu Akbar’ is about as offensive as someone saying, ‘Thank God.'”

True, Sen. McCain was given a tour of the land by the Syrian rebels, but for some reason he wasn’t introduced to the commander who likes to cut out chest cavities and eat human heart:

Footage [has been released] of a Syrian rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and biting into it has emerged online.

According to Human Rights Watch, the clip shows Abu Sakkar, a founder of the rebel Omar al-Farouq Brigade carrying out the bloody act.

He says: “I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog,” to offscreen cheering.

Sen. John McCain wants you to believe that the Obama administration is skilled enough to identify — and arm — rebels who are friendly to Western Civilization, basic human rights and individual liberty. Do you believe him?

If President Obama went on television tomorrow and admitted that the United Nations is generally just a collection of thug regimes that impede any real attempts at making the world a better place (because to do so would threaten their existence), I’d mute my criticism. If President Obama admitted that our “allies” are sitting with zipped lips because their own military forces are incapable of the task at hand, I’d mute my criticism. If he admitted that countless welfare states around the globe hobble along because countries have tacitly leeched off the blanket of security provided by the United States, I’d mute my criticism. But he won’t. To do so would cause the worldview he successfully sold to the American people in 2008 to implode.

Have you ever wondered what the world would look like without reliable American leadership? You are seeing it unfold before your very eyes.

What John McCain doesn’t realize is that for every politician who would be ready to do what is necessary and proper in order to achieve a set of military objectives in Syria, there are nine others who would throw their own grandmother — or Secretary of State — under the bus at a moment’s notice. Just ask John (I can’t promise there won’t be boots on the ground) Kerry, who went before the world and made an impassioned case for acting as soon as possible, only to have President Obama decide that maybe it can wait until “tomorrow or next week or one month from now.”

The problem isn’t so much that the U.S. wants to make a decision between a bad guy and a worse guy on the international stage — because that happens all the time. The problem is that, in this case, there is no confidence in elected American officials to choose between two groups of really bad guys.

Exit question: Do you really want to trust a senator who plays video game poker during hearings on the military intervention he’s pushing? if John McCain can’t sit through three hours of testimony on Syria — during the work day — without playing hand held video games, Americans shouldn’t sit through three days of bombing runs on a Middle Eastern country that didn’t attack them.


    1. Thanks for bringing up the whole cannibal thing. I saw that video and was absolutely disgusted with what I was seeing. Actually, repulsed is a better word. I always knew the rebels weren’t any better than Assad, but this just confirmed it. I’m sure the left will claim it’s “fake” or “the poor man has an eating disorder” or some such nonsense.

  1. Carl, conventional politics is unraveling. actual constituents from both sides of the political spectrum are overwhelmingly against war in Syria. but we don’t matter. the real constituents are AIPAC and weapons manufacturers; they have the ears of the nut-jobs who think western global hegemony is possible, and they are willing to spark WWIII with Russia and Iran to get there.

    1. Did you read about McCain’s amendment to the Senate resolution, Lizard19? What the heck? He wants to tip the balance into the rebels’ hands? Umm … so now we have an evolving justification for the bombing? And if he wants to tip the balance, what does he think the reaction will be by Russia and Iran?

    2. I haven’t read that yet.

      this whole conversation has been so frustrating, because I’ve been watching, reading, and writing about this stuff for a few years now in a manner that resists the partisan talking points. it was weird to see how Benghazi became a rallying cry on the right, and a point of ridicule on the so-called left. it was a significant event exposing the danger of mixing diplomatic “consulates” with CIA stations possibly involved in arms shipments to hot zones, like Syria. that event still hasn’t gotten the analysis it deserves.

      this link may come from a “lefty” site, but I highly recommend reading it because We Need to Talk About Prince Bandar.

    3. Here’s a quick link that includes his desire to “reverse momentum” away from Assad and towards the rebels. I’m sure there will be better commentary tomorrow.

      Your Prince Bandar piece was interesting. I’ve seen people on the right side of the fence try and cast off anyone who questions the official line of the chemical weapons attack as a conspiracy theorist. Why? In this case, Vladimir Putin is actually the sane one. Assad kills 100,000 with bullets and the world yawns, so why would he then use chemical weapons and bring U.S. military might down on his head (perhaps literally)? It makes no sense. Murder 100,000 and it generates no response, but add another 1,400 because of mustard and sarin gas and suddenly the U.S. needs to step in. How is that logical? If I thought for a second that the vast majority of the people who died weren’t Islamic extremists head choppers then it would make a tad more sense … but it’s still a stretch.

      What also bothers me is that all are so-called “allies” don’t want to publicly admit to supporting a strike. It’s hard to convince the American public that you have a “coalition of the willing” if members of the coalition won’t come forward.

    4. Indeed, Lizard 19… it’s amazing how many people from both sides of the spectrum (apart from a few hardcore Obama supporters I know) are in agreement on this.

    1. Whether it’s with Iraq, Iran, Syria or a whole host of other issues pertaining to the Middle East, the one thing that remains constant is the dysfunctional nature of the United Nations. Saddam gave the world the middle finger for over a decade, and when Bush called on the U.N. to act the “international community” balked. Say what you want about Bush, but the guy wasn’t afraid to call out dictators and despots.

      Fast forward to Obama, who peddled the world view that dictators and despots and irrational jihad thugs can be reasoned with if only the right guys (e.g., Barack Obama, John Kerry-ish types) are on the other side of the negotiating table. How’s that working out with Syria and Iran, Mr. President?

      I cut Bush some slack because in a post 9/11 world everyone complained about not connecting the dots. It’s impossible to see what Iraq would look like today if Saddam was still in power, but we do know that the United Nations — as it’s currently composed — increases the probability of war with men of the Saddam mold.

      I am not opposed to judiciously using the might of the American military to secure our interests at home and abroad. Prudence is key. My nod of approval is contingent upon having political leaders who can lay out clear and concise objectives, who stand on principle and who are willing to give the soldiers the tools the need to complete the mission. I have no confidence in our current crop of politicians to be risking American blood and treasure in the Middle East — and that no confidence vote applies to Democrats and Republicans.

      My biggest beef with many individuals (e.g., Harry Reid) who opposed Iraq was that once we were there they tried to throw in the towel. Once you’re chest deep into the mission you can’t just walk away. You need to figure out a way to accomplish the mission. While David Petraeus was trying to salvage Iraq, men like Harry Reid were going on television and saying the war “is lost.” I will not forget that.

    2. I was never opposed to the Iraq War (I think it was because I knew a few people who were fighting over there, mostly older students I had befriended; one kid in my grade had joined, even though he was opposed to the war and said he was only doing it for the benefits so he could “just sit on my ass all day once I leave the army and get paid by the government to do nothing,” but that’s a story for another day), and once we there I generally wanted us to win the war, unlike Reid who would go on TV and say it was “lost.” I haven’t forgotten that, either. If you’re going to star a war, you should be allowed to finish it. You can’t just walk away and declare all is lost. Like Hube, however, I am very critical of nation building and it has a very poor track record in the Middle East.

      Obama’s just plain naive on foreign policy. Jihadists, dictators and other thugs aren’t just going to stop killing people just because an Obama or a Kerry type are currently running the U.S. Of course, that’s going so well, right? Nope, all Obama, Kerry and their like-minded cronies are just making us look like idiots. There’s no reason whatsoever for us to go to Syria. Overthrowing Assad is just going to create a power vacuum in Syria and turn it into another hotbed for Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, just like North Africa has become since the intervention in Libya back in 2011.

      And the UN is a joke, plain and simple. They’d actually be useful if they actually condemned jihadists, China and other dictatorships instead of coming down on the U.S. and Israel, to name two examples. And stop trying to intervene in the politics of sovereign nations.

    3. And like Hube says in his post from 2005, the only two successful instances of U.S.-backed nation building are post-WWII Japan and Germany.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: