Democrat wants to arm Syrian rebels

| February 24, 2013

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Damascus

From Talking Point Memo comes the news that Democrat Congressman Eliot Engle is planning to introduce legislation to Congress which will allow the administration to help arm the Syrian rebels.

TERRY MORAN: The United States has a choice: arm the rebels, engage even more deeply in what is becoming a chaotic and dangerous war to this region or broker a peace, probably with Russia, give the Syrian people an opportunity to determine their future and at least in the first stages, Bashar Assad is likely to be part of that process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Engel is that the choice?

ENGEL: I think it’s the choice and I will be introducing legislation to allow the President to arm the rebels. I think it’s time to do that. I think the Free Syria Army needs help. We know who they are and I think it’s time we make that move.

The picture at the top of this post was taken a scant six years ago when, in contradiction to the Bush Administration’s policy of isolation of Syria, Nancy Pelosi and some other members of her Congress went to cuddle with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the current target of the rebels. Back then, Democrats said that Assad was committed to peace in the region, and now they’re willing to arm rebels against him.

Democrats have a history of being absolutely wrong about dealing with the 6th century despots of the Middle eastern countries, and now we should trust them as to who we can arm? We also have concern about weapons of mass destruction in Syria, and there’s supposedly a plan to send in US troops to secure those stockpiles – so our troops can face the weapons we sent there for the rebels?

Democrats want to cut our own defense, yet send weapons to bands of roving rebels. Good plan.

Category: Terror War

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. defendUSA says:

    They are breaking their oath of office, IMHO.

  2. ComancheDoc says:

    I can think of at least a half dozen better ways to spend our tax money than on rebels in the ME before I even finish my cup of coffee.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why not just give Sidewinders and heavy guns and rockets to the Taliban and Iran directly?

    Any arms given to the Syrian opposition will go straight to Iran, getting around that pesky embargo that folks are so fond of, and to the Taliban.

    What a neat little deal. The Dems can say they’re helping the Syrian opposition (Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ, Muslim Brotherhood, and a few pro-western/anti-Israel freedom fighters) while up-arming Iran against any Israeli airstrike; and giving the Taliban the ultimate in DoD destruction: the arms to shut down the Bagram APOD (while Iranian, Pakistani, Chinese, and Russian-surrogates shut down the land route out).

  4. DaveO says:

    #3 is me.

  5. Hondo says:

    Arms to the Syrian rebels? “I got a bad feeling about this . . . . “

  6. NR Pax says:

    I thought Nancy was agreeing to help him out with a chin implant.

  7. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    He’s probably a distinguished graduate of the Kerry School of Explanation and Diplomacy. He was against it before he was for it.

  8. Don True says:

    Or track record of assisting rebels ain’t so great, 2 prime examples:Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden.

  9. Hondo says:

    Don True: don’t forget the current Islamist regimes in Cairo and Tripoli.

  10. NHSparky says:

    Hmmm…let’s see, Muslim tyrants and Muslim fundamentalists, both of whom hate us, are killing each other in droves.

    And we want to support one side over the other? Yeah, not seeing it.

  11. AW1Ed says:

    We’ve got to DO SOMETHING! It’s for the children. Think about the poor children!


  12. A Proud Infidel says:

    They’ll do as they please, and blame Republicans when it goes to pot with their sniveling lackeys in the snooze media doing their bidding!

  13. Hondo says:

    NHSparky: your comment reminds me of an article I read during the early troubles between Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia as former Yugoslavia was coming apart. At the time, there was substantial pressure for US to provide overt support for the Bosnians.

    The author likened the situation to observing a 3-way fight between (1) a guy who had murdered 7 men and raped 4 women; (2) a second guy who had murdered 5 men and raped 3 women; and (3) a third guy who had murdered 3 men and raped 2 women. None of the three particularly likes you, either. And you have no history with any of the three.

    In such a case, what justification do you have for supporting any of the choices?

  14. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Hondo: I’d have to pick #1. He seems to be the best at what all three do!

  15. Hondo says:

    2/17 Air Cav: so you’d have been OK with supporting Serbia? (smile)

    Bismark said it best in the late 1800s: “All of Bosnia is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” True then, and true today.

    Sometimes knowing when not to get involved is critical.

  16. Kenneth says:

    The Democrats’ actions abroad mirror their actions at home. Actively facilitate the acquisition of arms by drug cartels, but disarm people who only want to be equipped to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones.


  17. tops116 says:

    Because it worked out so well in Libya, right? 😐

  18. DaveO says:

    #15 Aren’t we still in Bosnia and Kosovo?

  19. Just Plain Jason says:

    All the while Vlad is laughing all the way to the bank with Russian oil flowing to Europe.