On Syria, the ends justify the means for Moran

President Obama’s push for military intervention in Syria has created some strange political alliances. United in opposing military action in Syria are anti-war liberals and Tea Party conservatives. Supporters of Obama’s call for military action include Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Moran.

Jim Moran came out with a statement on Monday saying, “President Obama was absolutely right in setting a red line against the use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar al-Assad. The United States has the only true ability to prevent the use and proliferation of such weapons. Abdicating this responsibility will only allow for their deployment to become the new norm. Now it is up to one of the most divisive, least productive Congresses in history to authorize an intervention and protect the credibility and viability of a US response to Assad’s horrific crimes against humanity.”

The hypocrisy here is pretty staggering. Read the statement above again, replacing “President Obama” with “President Bush”, and “Bashar al-Assad” with “Saddam Hussein”, and you might think we were back in 2003. Regardless of how you feel about either the Iraq War or Syria, the comparison is obvious – in both cases, national security officials are/were quite certain of the possession of WMDs by the respective countries. Hussein slaughtered his own people; so has Assad.

The difference is Moran’s position on the wars. Moran vociferously opposed the Iraq War, as did many others, but Moran’s stated reasons for opposing it were downright frightening. He claimed – not once, but twice – that Jews caused the Iraq War, not once but twice. He even went to the House floor to claim that American troops had “ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad“. Yet here he is, sounding like a war hawk, demanding we intervene in Syria. What gives?


Watch this video of Jim Moran on MSNBC flipping out at fellow Democrat Charlie Rangel:

Did you catch that last sentence?

“Not only is your position wrong, but you’re gonna cripple our president for the next 40 months, Charlie.”

Jim Moran doesn’t support war in Syria because he thinks it’s “the right thing to do”. He supports it because if he doesn’t, it will damage Obama politically. Moran hated war when Bush was commander in chief, but he’s all for it now with Obama. Moran knows that Obama must succeed here or risk becoming a lame duck, so Moran is supporting a war in order to push Obama’s agenda on every other issue. The ends justify the means. Moran will do anything to push a liberal agenda, even if that means a war.

  • Anonymous

    what a Moran! ooops MORON