Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your latest paper concerning your position with regard to a US military attack on Syria.
You said your position is that a U.S. attack that allows Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote U.S. national security interests, and such an intervention could easily become a disaster. You are concerned that President Obama took a hard stance against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons and then failed to back it up with concrete steps, You are also concerned that launching a half-hearted, ineffectual attack would do nothing to uphold America’s credibility.
Let's take your points one by one.
In the preamble of your article, you bemoaned the numbers of Syrians who have been killed in the Syrian Civil War. May I suggest that one of the standard ancillary aspects of war is the killing of people. By referring to this as emotionally objectionable, you are playing to the compassion of the American public. Compassion is an emotional reaction, and physical reactions on the basis of such compassion are usually misguided. As a Senator, you should not be involved in such manipulation.
Then you said that any US attack allowing Pres. Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote US national interests. Your implication is that Assad should be deposed. What basis do you have for that position? Is it really any of your business? Then you are concerned that somehow a large stockpile of chemical weapons involved US national interests. What US national interests? We have none in Syria. If they want to gas each other, or one side has a preferred position on gassing, what business is it of yours?
You are concerned that Pres. Obama took a hard stance against Assad's use of chemical weapons and then backtracked, which projects to the world a poor picture of America's credibility. Are you concerned primarily with appearances? Would you have preferred that Pres. Obama launch an immediate attack on Syria, which in effect would be a declaration of war and lead to substantially more killing? I don't know about your regard for posturing, but mine is that if you're wrong, admit it. While I am normally opposed to most actions of Pres. Obama, he did the right thing in this case. He has not yet started another war for the US in Syria.
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your latest paper concerning your position with regard to a US military attack on Syria.
You said your position is that a U.S. attack that allows Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote U.S. national security interests, and such an intervention could easily become a disaster. You are concerned that President Obama took a hard stance against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons and then failed to back it up with concrete steps, You are also concerned that launching a half-hearted, ineffectual attack would do nothing to uphold America’s credibility.
Let's take your points one by one.
In the preamble of your article, you bemoaned the numbers of Syrians who have been killed in the Syrian Civil War. May I suggest that one of the standard ancillary aspects of war is the killing of people. By referring to this as emotionally objectionable, you are playing to the compassion of the American public. Compassion is an emotional reaction, and physical reactions on the basis of such compassion are usually misguided. As a Senator, you should not be involved in such manipulation.
Then you said that any US attack allowing Pres. Assad to remain in power with a large stockpile of chemical weapons would not promote US national interests. Your implication is that Assad should be deposed. What basis do you have for that position? Is it really any of your business? Then you are concerned that somehow a large stockpile of chemical weapons involved US national interests. What US national interests? We have none in Syria. If they want to gas each other, or one side has a preferred position on gassing, what business is it of yours?
You are concerned that Pres. Obama took a hard stance against Assad's use of chemical weapons and then backtracked, which projects to the world a poor picture of America's credibility. Are you concerned primarily with appearances? Would you have preferred that Pres. Obama launch an immediate attack on Syria, which in effect would be a declaration of war and lead to substantially more killing? I don't know about your regard for posturing, but mine is that if you're wrong, admit it. While I am normally opposed to most actions of Pres. Obama, he did the right thing in this case. He has not yet started another war for the US in Syria.
You then went on to say that you offered
Senate Amendment 3260 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (FY13 NDAA; P.L. 112-239), which prohibits the use of funding for the U.S.
government to enter into any further contracts or business agreements with
Rosoboronexport,
the Russian state-owned arms broker. There
are two things wrong with this. First of all, you are denying our military from
ordering from the Russians any equipment which it feels may be superior to our
own. Secondly, you are meddling with a boycott of a Russian company on the basis
of what the Russians are doing with their neighbor, Syria.
Finally, you said you cannot vote to authorize the use of US military force against Syria at this time. This surprises me, after all you had previously said about reasons we should be involved. May I suggest that in future you take a position of action on any subject and then give reasons why you take the position. On Syria, you took a position of not acting against Syria, while you gave substantially poor reasons why we should be acting against Syria. Is that weasel wording?
Finally, you said you cannot vote to authorize the use of US military force against Syria at this time. This surprises me, after all you had previously said about reasons we should be involved. May I suggest that in future you take a position of action on any subject and then give reasons why you take the position. On Syria, you took a position of not acting against Syria, while you gave substantially poor reasons why we should be acting against Syria. Is that weasel wording?
No comments:
Post a Comment