One of the most disgusting figures in our national politics these days (and that is really saying something) is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democrat National Committee. She is a person who is prepared to say anything at any time to advance her cause. Today, we had yet another example of this type of garbage from Wasserman Schultz. It came on CNN, so I am repeating it here in full since probably only six people actually saw it live on TV (and they were probably stuck watching CNN at the airport, unable to change the station.)
WOLF BLITZER: What happens if the president doesn't get a positive vote in the House of Representatives? What if he gets rejected there, as David Cameron did in Britain?
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): Well, I feel confident that our colleagues, my colleagues both on the Republican side of the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle are not going to jeopardize the credibility of the United States. I feel confident that we will have a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate who will understand and authorize the president to engage in a limited targeted strike that ensures that our national security interests are protected, but also that he respond to atrocities, and exercise the moral leadership that the United States has always led with.
For me as a mother, to see that searing image of babies lined up, murdered by their own government, innocent children. I mean, as a Jew, Wolf, I have to tell you, as a member of Congress who represents one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations in the country, to me, the concept of never again, has to mean something. And the United States, morally, cannot turn the other cheek. Too many leaders of ours have regretted that decision.
If one reads the emotional appeal being made by Wasserman Schultz, her point is one that makes sense. America is a moral leader. America has to stand up to stop this murder. America cannot ignore what is happening in Syria. These are points with which I agree for the most part. But then comes the point where one thinks about what this woman has just said. Remember, the attack in Damascus was the 15th time that the Assad forces used chemical weapons against civilians in the last eight months. If Wasserman Schultz cannot stand by while the Syrians use chemical weapons, where the hell has she been for the last eight months? If, as a Jew and as a mother, these images are just too terrible to take, why were they fine the first fourteen times that chemical attacks happened? It cannot be that Wasserman Schultz did not know about the attacks; she is the chair of the Democrat National Committee and a member of Congress. She must, at least, try to keep up with world events.
The sad truth is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now speaking out about Syria and chemical weapons only because the head of her party, president Obama has thrown the ball to Congress. Now she has to take a position supporting Obama; after all, she is the head of his party. If she won't support Obama, who would? But Debbie ought to be a bit more careful about what she says. She does not even have an explanation about why she was silent during the first week after the video of the chemical attack surfaced, but now she is just soooooo upset by it that it is a moral outrage.
It is two faced people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who give Congress its bad reputation.
WOLF BLITZER: What happens if the president doesn't get a positive vote in the House of Representatives? What if he gets rejected there, as David Cameron did in Britain?
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): Well, I feel confident that our colleagues, my colleagues both on the Republican side of the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle are not going to jeopardize the credibility of the United States. I feel confident that we will have a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate who will understand and authorize the president to engage in a limited targeted strike that ensures that our national security interests are protected, but also that he respond to atrocities, and exercise the moral leadership that the United States has always led with.
For me as a mother, to see that searing image of babies lined up, murdered by their own government, innocent children. I mean, as a Jew, Wolf, I have to tell you, as a member of Congress who represents one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations in the country, to me, the concept of never again, has to mean something. And the United States, morally, cannot turn the other cheek. Too many leaders of ours have regretted that decision.
If one reads the emotional appeal being made by Wasserman Schultz, her point is one that makes sense. America is a moral leader. America has to stand up to stop this murder. America cannot ignore what is happening in Syria. These are points with which I agree for the most part. But then comes the point where one thinks about what this woman has just said. Remember, the attack in Damascus was the 15th time that the Assad forces used chemical weapons against civilians in the last eight months. If Wasserman Schultz cannot stand by while the Syrians use chemical weapons, where the hell has she been for the last eight months? If, as a Jew and as a mother, these images are just too terrible to take, why were they fine the first fourteen times that chemical attacks happened? It cannot be that Wasserman Schultz did not know about the attacks; she is the chair of the Democrat National Committee and a member of Congress. She must, at least, try to keep up with world events.
The sad truth is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now speaking out about Syria and chemical weapons only because the head of her party, president Obama has thrown the ball to Congress. Now she has to take a position supporting Obama; after all, she is the head of his party. If she won't support Obama, who would? But Debbie ought to be a bit more careful about what she says. She does not even have an explanation about why she was silent during the first week after the video of the chemical attack surfaced, but now she is just soooooo upset by it that it is a moral outrage.
It is two faced people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who give Congress its bad reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment