Monday, August 26, 2013

Sen. Kay Hagan: No troops in Syria

America should not send troops to Syria despite the use of chemical weapons there and the firing on UN inspectors today, U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan told the Observer editorial board today.

"We do not need to have boots on the ground in Syria," Hagan, a first-term Democrat, said. "I wish we could exert more pressure especially from a diplomatic standpoint to bring some sort of an end to the violence."

It is believed chemical weapons were used last week, though it's not certain whether the Assad regime was responsible. A team of UN inspectors was fired upon by snipers today outside Damascus.

Hagan said she is waiting to hear from the administration about what options are on the table. She said the situation is complicated by Syria's air defense missile systems and support from Russia. Asked how well she thought the Obama administration had handled the Syrian crisis over the past year, Hagan said: "I wish I could say Assad is no longer in power but that's not the case."

She said Obama should have open discussions with the intelligence committees and armed services committees in Congress before taking any kind of military action.

Hagan gave what will likely be a preview of her reelection campaign next year, particularly if House Speaker Thom Tillis wins the Republican nomination. She blasted the Republican legislature for an array of policies, including the voter ID bill, refusing a federal expansion of Medicaid, cutting off federal unemployment benefits and education funding. She called the voter ID bill "unbelievable suppression."

Hagan touched on other issues:

  • Egypt. "I'm certainly questioning whether we should be giving any more aid at this point in time until we get better understanding from the Egyptian military that... To me it doesn't make sense to be giving aid at a point when the Egyptian military is using military force against its own people." She would not say whether the events there constituted a coup, which by federal law would require an end to foreign aid.
  • Sex assaults in the military. She said "it's a serious problem" and said it's "reprehensible" that a commanding officer could overturn a guilty verdict. She said some female members of the military declined to drink liquids in the late afternoon or evening because they were scared to use the latrine at night because of the threat of sexual assault from other U.S. military members.
  • The NSA. "We need to put more procedures in place to have the American public understand what it is that's being collected, how it's being collected, what processes the government has to go through in order to get access to the actual information." She added: "Right now I am comfortable with it (the balance of surveillance and privacy) but I do think more notice, more transparency needs to be put into place for the public."
-- Taylor Batten


RobNClt said...

She will not be in the U.S. Senate after the 2014 election other than to clear her desk.

Regardless of the Observer's effort to help her we are not deceived, she and the Observer are so far left they can't spell right and just as the other lefties have done, she will lose. She will lose with the Observer's help and that makes it twice as sweet to me.

She is right about one thing, no troops in Syria. I say no troops, no cruise missiles, nothing! Let them fight it out until one side or the other caves. It's not our business.

If a hundred thousand U.S. citizens marched on Washington to Remove Barack Obama with guns, grenades, RPG, etc. would anyone send troops to stop the U.S. government's assault on it's own people? No, thousands would die while the battle raged in Washington.

We have people prepared and preparing for to take the same action that Syrian leaders are taking. Amazing how we feel we can punish people for doing what we have done or would do!

Garth Vader said...

WBT interviewed CMS superintendent Heath Morrison this morning. The big thing he was hyping is "new security measures" which include, yes, ID cards for teachers and students.

I breathlessly await Sen. Hagan's condemnation of this "unbelievable suppression" of education.

Wiley Coyote said...

Hagan said she is waiting to hear from the administration about what options are on the table.

Hey ummmm..Senator?

We're all waiting to hear from the administration but Obama is out playing golf.

Besides, since the line in the sand thing failed, he's preparing a stick to put on his shoulder and will dare Assad to knock it off. If that fails, he will draw a circle and dare Assad to step into it. If he does step into the circle, Obama will makeup a story about having to go home to eat dinner.

Oh wait.

That was an episode of Andy Griffith when Opie had to finally stand up to a bully.

jay1937 said...

I agree with her on Syria. I don't think we should intervene in any way. The United States has Military personal in and around Korea, Japan, German, Kuwait,Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world. We can not be the peace keepers of the world anymore. Since World War II, we have expended Billions in rebuilding nations we had to destroy, billions on taking care of the people of the world, something we should do in other ways than waging war against those that step across a line. I personally believe Obama should just keep his mouth shut, let those in Syria, Egypt and other places kill each other off until there's no one left to wage a war again their neighbor. The US is not strong enough militarily to protect it's own citizens as shown in the Benghazi situation and is too timid to admit it was a terrorist attack, just as the Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist massacre. Keep out, rebuild out nation, put people to work, get almost half this nation off the welfare and food stamp rolls and make them dependent upon their own efforts, just as the nations around the world are fighting wars in the name of religion, soon this nation will be doing the same in the name of survival. Yes Kay, keep the troops and any military out of Syria. Don't send anymore money to Egypt and take a real good look at other countries the US still supports and possibly, cut off that spigot too. We can't pay our military when they are worth, we can't pay the survivors of the Fort Hood terrorist killings or wounded what they are due. There is really something wrong with this nation and we too, as I stated will end up acting just like those in the middle east and the people of many other countries have acted over the hundreds of years of the past.

Archiguy said...

Three comments:

1) There will be no U.S. boots on the ground in Syria. There will be a strategic cruise missile strike to punish Assad for the use of chemical munitions, perhaps in concert with the British and French. This strike is probably just days away, and the President will make an address to the country at that time. It's the best option out of a slew of bad ones.

2) U.S. military aid to Egypt serves two purposes. The first is to aid the Egyptian military and to ensure they remain a U.S. client. The second is that it is a defacto method of transferring American taxpayer money to the military/industrial complex. It's a shell game - we give them money, they then use that money to buy hardware from General Dynamics and about 40 other U.S. military contractors. Such aid/tax money transfer is thus protected by a number of powerful patrons in Congress and it will continue unabated no matter what happens in Egypt.

3) It's bad enough that someone like RobNCt walks anonymously among us. But does the Observer really have to subject its readers to his right-wing rants and paranoid fantasies about armed succession (which, I believe, has already been tried - and failed) and the legitimate media?

A little moderation regarding posts like his (i.e. don't publish them) would go a long way toward making these comment sections more civilized and beneficial for your more sane and rational readers. Thank you.

Skippy said...

Oh look the CO kicked over a creek rock and found a spineless Hagan.. Let me help you out Kay, your boss is giving money illegally to Egypt, this is a 100% military coup and by law he is not suppose to be giving any more of our money to these idiots.. Military sexual assaults is not a "serious" problem not by percentage and what is a "serious problem" is no one asking you or Obama or Pelosi why you gave the serial woman sexual molester and now just retired Mayor of San Diego years of hall pass without saying one word nor why any of you other liberals have not expressed one word of outrage over the murder of a 88 year WWII survivor dead at the hands of black thugs. But not to worry usefuls, Kay is "comfortable" with the NSA which means she is comfortable with the IRS being used as a political weapon, Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the President playing golf over 150 times and counting...

Epic journalism Taylor, you are a real hero..

Wiley Coyote said...

3) It's bad enough that someone like RobNCt walks anonymously among us. But does the Observer really have to subject its readers to his right-wing rants and paranoid fantasies about armed succession (which, I believe, has already been tried - and failed) and the legitimate media?

A little moderation regarding posts like his (i.e. don't publish them) would go a long way toward making these comment sections more civilized and beneficial for your more sane and rational readers. Thank you.

Archie Archie Archie....

No different than your extremely slanted liberal rants in the lame stream media....

You're no different than Rob. You just occupy the other end of the stick.

Archiguy said...

No Wiley, I don't. I live in the real world, and I don't post "leftist propaganda". I deal in demonstrable facts and rational conclusions based on objective criteria. But there are an unfortunate few that pollute these comment sections with irrational rants and hyperbole, making them often unfit to read. Well-reasoned conservative viewpoints are one thing - irrational diatribes against the President in particular and progressives in general are quite another. I'm sick of it.

The comment by RobNClt above is a prime example. He has a right to believe such nonsense, but he doesn't have a right to inflict that rubbish on others. You don't see that kind of thing in the online comment sections of the country's great newspapers. The Observer should moderate these sections more carefully.

Garth Vader said...


Do you believe for a minute that the "cruise missile strike" will happen in a vacuum? I.e. that Assad would not retaliate/escalate?

If the US escalates with a cruise missile strike, Assad will return fire against either a Western target or an Israeli one.

What Assad is doing is no different from what President Peace Prize is doing in a half-dozen countries with drones. Both are terrorists.

To paraphrase Sen. Hagan, "I wish I could say Obama is no longer in power but that's not the case."

Oh and just to preempt your shallow partisan rebuttal, I have voted against Romney three times, voted against McCain twice, voted against W twice, voted against Dole, and voted against GHW Bush twice.

Wiley Coyote said...


I've never seen you post anything right of center.


Is that "living in the real world"?

Archiguy said...

Yes, it is Wiley. My positions are usually progressive, but not always mainstream liberal or "far left". They're typically the sensible and rational positions based on my own moral & ethical compass, historical precedent, and the facts at hand.

Sometimes they dovetail with the libertarian viewpoint, sometimes even with the conservative one, and always with the mainstream scientific consensus. I don't bother with propaganda from either side, and I don't let my personal religious views interfere with my positions on public or civic policy. I defend my positions based on sound reasoning, not ranting and raving. Unfortunately, that's pretty rare around here.

The fact that you haven't seen those simply means you don't read every comment I make, just as I'm sure I don't read every one of yours.

CharlotteObserver said...

It is nice Archi Guy has such a great opinion of themselves and so quick to judge their comments.

CharlotteObserver said...

Great to hear we are so worried about what is going on all over the world when a kid kills someone after playing a game, a couple of kids kill a 80 plus year old veteran and folks are killing each other over parking spots in this country.

Maybe we need to focus on our problems and get them fixed first before we act high and mighty.

Archiguy said...

Garth - The Israelis have already struck Assad at least twice from the air. Did he retaliate against them?

And he won't against us either. This is a test, to see how the west will respond. We have to answer, unfortunately.

Garth Vader said...


1. Do you think the international community would have the moral high ground if it organized air strikes against the US in retaliation for the 4,000+ non-combatant civilians Obama has killed by drone attack?

2. Since you say "WE have to answer", could you please provide me with your branch and rank?

Archiguy said...

Garth - No. I don't equivocate targeted drone strikes against terrorist targets the equivalent, moral or otherwise, of launching nerve gas attacks against your own people. Even if, as Dick Cheney referred to it, there is "collateral damage".

And let's not even mention the 150,000 Iraqis who have died, or the full one sixth of their population who was displaced, or the loss of nearly the entire indigenous Christian community, since we invaded and occupied their country. I KNOW you won't want to got there.

Secondly, my service record is none of your business. By "we", I was referring to the United States. But you knew that when you posted the question - which kind of makes you a troll.

Garth Vader said...


FACT: 49 civilians die for every "combatant" target killed.

FACT: Obama has redefined "combatant" to mean ANY male 18-45 in the area of a drone strike.

FACT: Obama is carrying out "double-tap" strikes, in violation of international law, wherein rescuers and medical personnel responding to a strike are targeted. The UN is investigating these war crimes.

FACT: Obama has targeted funerals, mosques and prayer ceremonies.

FACT: Former and current intelligence officials confirm that Obama's drone strikes are, understandably, breeding a new generation of anti-American terrorists amongst the civilian survivors of the attacks.

FACT: Drone strikes are terrorizing and traumatizing a generation of Yemeni, Pakistani, Somali and Afghan children.

FACT: All you can come back with is "Bush Cheney Bush Cheney Bush Cheney", when I told you that I have voted against Bushes, Cheneys, Romneys and McCains for literally decades.

FACT: Literate progressives have described Obama's foreign policy as "Bush On Steroids". So in all honesty, the only person in this thread who supports George W. Bush is YOU.

Archiguy said...

So what do you propose we do with regards to Al Qaeda Garth? Throw rocks at them? (Note that "we" means "United States". I hope that's clear now.)

Look, I'm not happy about collateral damage from drone strikes either, but there is no question it's degrading and decapitating those who mean us harm. It's the best of a slate of crummy choices, just as any action in that part of the world is.

If we had created an alternative energy policy 40 years ago and weaned ourselves off foreign oil, as President Carter urged, we might not be mired in the middle east today. That would have been the BEST choice.

I don't fault this President for doing what's necessary. I fault the LAST President for doing what was NOT necessary.

Garth Vader said...

A 49:1 innocent-to-"combatant" ratio is not "collateral damage", it is mass murder.

Double-tapping is not "collateral damage", it is mass murder.

Targeting mosques, funerals and prayer gatherings is not "collateral damage", it is mass murder.

You sir, are an accessory to mass murder.