I Really, Really Dislike S.E. Cupp »« NOM Attacks Ginsburg to Raise Money

Grimm’s Four Day Flip Flop

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) was all for a military strike against Syria early last week, mere hours after President Obama announced he would seek congressional approval authorizing that action. It was crucial, he said, to respond militarily or we would lose our national credibility:

“We have to keep our word; this is about our credibility. We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

And a few days later, not only has he switched his position but he’s sending out fundraising letters asking people to “stand with me in opposing President Obama’s plan” for a military response.

When President Obama first announced his plan for strikes against the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, my first reaction as a Marine combat veteran was to support immediate, targeted strikes. I now believe that the opportunity for such action has passed.

President Obama has failed to show strength at this critical moment in time. While the debate in Congress continues, our nation’s credibility grows weaker and weaker. After much deliberation and prayer, I have decided to withdraw my support. I do not feel that our country has enough to gain by moving forward with this attack.

Stand with me today with a donation of $25 or more to strongly oppose military action in Syria.

An amusing attempt to make his change of position sound noble and rational.

Comments

  1. Abby Normal says

    I’m impressed; he didn’t pretend he never supported a strike. I would have expected him to claim his earlier comments had been taken out of context and his meaning misconstrued.

    Perhaps my cynicism level needs a little adjusting.

  2. eric says

    We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

    I agree. Of course, forcing them to open their military sites to inspection, turn over their weapons and factories without a strike is a pretty effective response, too. In terms of deterrence, I imagine many regimes would probably prefer to deal with rebels using conventional arms, rather than quash them in a way that brings the US or UN into their country. The rebels are a problem; US interference is a big problem.

  3. says

    my first reaction as a Marine combat veteran was to support immediate, targeted strikes

    My first reaction as a mindless agent of the state was to beg to lick the jackboot that stomps on my face.

  4. zero6ix says

    So, wait, we’ll lose credibility for not obliterating them, but we’ll lose credibility for obliterating them? And why does doing nothing cost $25, but using our ultrabombs is free?

  5. raven says

    We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

    I don’t see why.

    We’ve already done exactly that a few times.

    Poison gas was used in Iraq twice, one against the Kurds and once against the Iranians. It was also used in Yemen during one of their civil wars.

    And the USA used incredible quantities of tear gas and Agent Orange in Vietnam. Parts of Vietnam are still contaminated with dioxin.

  6. raven says

    wikipedia:

    Effects on the Vietnamese people[edit source]
    Health effects[edit source]

    Vietnamese babies, deformed and stillborn after prenatal dioxin exposure from Agent Orange
    The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects.[51] According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[52] Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, as did livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, and pigs.[53]

    Agent Orange is/was banned in the USA. High concentrations of dioxin and half of it is 2,4,5 T, a now banned herbicide.

    Agent Orange was used to destroy crops so the farmers would move to the cities to escape starvation while the VC wouldn’t be able to do that. And also to destroy the forests so they couldn’t hide. Both of which worked sort of, inasmuch as rural areas were depopulated and the forests killed.

    The death, morbidity, and birth defect numbers aren’t too reliable. The Vietnamese government has an interest in claiming high numbers, the US government in claiming low numbers. If proper long term studies haven’t been done, chances are no one really knows except that it was a lot of people.

    We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

    Unless it is Americans who are using the chemical weapons. Because, shut up, who is going to stop us?

  7. Michael Heath says

    Abby Normal writes:

    I’m impressed; he didn’t pretend he never supported a strike. I would have expected him to claim his earlier comments had been taken out of context and his meaning misconstrued.

    Perhaps my cynicism level needs a little adjusting.

    I don’t think so, instead I view this as a tactical political error by Rep. Grimm. He missed the opportunity to lay claim to his being a Liar for Jesus®. In this case a True Patriot takes whatever position opposes the uppity black guy in the White House; where flip flops that go denied or unacknowledged vividly demonstrate one’s loyalty to our Christian Nation.

  8. exdrone says

    Abby Normal @2:

    I would have expected him to claim his earlier comments had been taken out of context and his meaning misconstrued.

    The other way to go is the McCain/Graham approach – Obama is now taking our position, but he didn’t do it soon enough / forcefully enough / seriously enough / … / properly enough, so now he’s making it worse. Once you establish how more correct you are, then you can change your position and retract your support in a huff.

Leave a Reply