Thursday, September 12, 2013

Paul Ryan's Completely Incoherent Syria Response

Paul Ryan has found himself in many an awkward position lately. Having taken the lead on immigration reform, he has seen normally supportive political forces get a little sassy with him - running some not so funny commercials criticizing his immigration aspirations.

Boy wonder turns into boy blunder pretty fast these days.

Lyin' Ryan was all too happy to plunge the U.S. into a war based on flimsy evidence in Iraq during the Bush Administration. But the scene got all topsy-turvy for Ryan when President Obama went hawkish about a strike on Syria - with a lot more evidence than they had in Iraq.

Wait! Barack says up, I say down. Barack says strike, I say....huh? What's a guy to do when the automatic response is not just the opposite of whatever the President says? (Hint: the answer is THINK.)

Can't we just go back to voting to repeal Obamacare!?

Being a pillar of conviction, Ryan mumbled some vague words when asked prior to the President's address on Tuesday night.
“The President has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria,” Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement released Tuesday. “He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America’s security. I want to hear his case to Congress and to the American people.”
So, that's clear. Ryan forgets that he was once a candidate for Vice-President and those funny little machines called video cameras actually captured him being quite clear on Syria.
"Now, let me say it this way. How would we do things differently? We wouldn’t refer to Bashar Assad as a reformer when he’s killing his own civilians with his Russian-provided weapons. We wouldn’t be outsourcing our foreign policy to the United Nations giving Vladimir Putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. He’s vetoed three of them."
"No, I would — I — we would not be going through the U.N. in all of these things." 
"Well, we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons, but not putting American troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. They’re right about that."
Hmmmm. That's sounds exactly like what the President was doing prior to his address on Tuesday, doesn't it? Grave missteps? Right.

The President goes on TV and announces a diplomatic compromise and a delay in a rapid military strike. - that wouldn't have come about if we didn't look ready to strike. How does Ryan describe the President's actions?
“Syria’s civil war isn’t our fight, but we have a stake in the outcome,” he said. “The best punishment for Assad’s war crimes is for the moderate elements of the opposition to prevail. But the President’s ill-conceived, half-hearted proposal will do little to help. It will make America look weak, when we need to be strong. It will merely curse the past, when we need to protect the future. For all these reasons, I cannot support it.”
Oh, for fuck's sake. The majority of people wanted a diplomatic solution, to wait for U.N. cooperation and to not go face-first into another war and Ryan's take-away is "ill-conceived."

The gentle reader may feel somewhat disoriented by the abruptly contradictory nature of Ryan's Syria position - but Ryan is back in his wheel-house - opposing the President even if it is the opposite of what he has said before and makes absolutely no sense.