Hi 8° | Lo -6°

My Turn: On Syria, Shaheen does not stand with you

The American public overwhelmingly believes that military intervention in Syria is the wrong move. Blindly backing an opposition Syrian rebel force with ties to al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood operatives can only be a recipe for disaster. The recent actions of this same rebel force, highlighted by their execution of seven Syrian soldiers, not only shows that they have adopted the same brutal tactics as the regime they are attempting to overthrow, but also sheds light on President Obama and his congressional sheep’s failed foreign policy.

Said another way, the administration feels it not only appropriate but also necessary to lend support to the very group of people that nearly brought America to its knees 12 years ago.

Let us not forget the results of that day. It is because of these very individuals we are now being told to support that we as a nation have faced countless sacrifices in terms of individual freedoms, lost loved ones serving bravely in our military, and the sheer strain of being at war for over a decade.

Now suddenly our enemy is our friend? Why did Sen. Jeanne Shaheen proudly cast her vote in support of military action in Syria? Why should we support our enemy? Why did she vote against the desire of the majority of her constituents in New Hampshire? Clearly she once again is blindly marching over the cliff in lockstep with her leader, Barack Obama, just as she has time after time on issues such as Obamacare.

Getting involved on either side of the Syrian civil war will not bode well for America in regards to lives lost, money spent, or our prominence on the international stage.

I respect the process of diplomacy. A gas attack in Syria, while completely and utterly tragic, is not an immediate threat to America. So why, if as Obama says, “the Americans are right not to want to go to war with Syria,” does Shaheen support the push to pass a resolution for military action? If Syria is not an immediate threat, it begs the next obvious question: Is Shaheen merely aiding in the attempt of this administration to turn our focus away from Benghazi, the IRS or the NSA, to name just a few, by involving us in another senseless war?

As a daughter, mother and wife of a strong and proud military family, I am well aware of the sacrifices this nation sometimes asks of our sons and daughters. Because of that I could not, in good conscience, vote to send them out into another war, to stand shoulder to shoulder amongst our sworn enemy, to merely satisfy a political agenda. If there ever were a reason to go to war with Syria, it should be in defense of the countless Christians being slaughtered at the hands of the Syrian rebels!

Where is Obama on this atrocity? Where is Shaheen? They’ll happily turn a blind eye to the execution of Christians but think nothing of the consequences of sending us into a war to support our enemies. The reality is Obama and Shaheen are continuously on the wrong side of the issues.

Sadly, this is just one more example of how this administration and its political foot-soldiers continue to place their self-serving politics before its hard-working citizens, and it’s time to vote them out of office.

Shaheen does not stand with you, she stands with Obama and this feckless administration.

(Republican Karen Testerman of Franklin is considering a run for the U.S. Senate in 2014. She is the founder and former executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and host of “We Hold These Truths,” on WSMN Radio.)

Legacy Comments18

Funny how Ayotte has broken off from the trio of hawks, with McCain an Graham. Maybe the beating she took on gun control has made her aware she isn't from a southern red state.

Hmm...or a red state like Colorado?

I kind of thought Bruce the post was about Shaheen. At any rate, I am not a fan of McCain at all. He is a warmonger that is still living in the past. For some reason when men get older they seem to need a lot of reassurance of how great they use to be and prove they still are in the game. A perfect example of that is Bill Clinton. He wants to get back in the WH and run the country with Hillary. The Couple in Chief. Boehner has no spine. he can be swayed very easily. I think he is sincere though. My guess is that you would never do an honest appraisal of a Dem Bruce. labeling Van as disagreeable is kind of funny also. I suggest you reread your posts Bruce and the tone you use and the labels you put on folks.

Hang on, there. So when Van says that our duly elected senator represents al-Qaida, that's not being "disagreeable?" How about when he refers to people he disagrees with as "mind-numbed Obamabots?" Or others as "low-information voters?" Are we getting to "disagreeable" yet? But it's ok to chastise Bruce for his "tone." This is the textbook example of a double standard. As for Bruce, he always elevates the discussion beyond the usual "did so"-"did not" level. He is well-informed and articulate. He builds his case with evidence that leads his readers to a logical conclusion. He does not sink to ad-hominem attacks or take cheap shots at those with whom he disagrees. He writes with authority and persuasively. In other words, he is a model for all.

Nicely done, Publius.

Thanks for the kind words.

Well deserved. Thank you.

Looks like I hit a nerve with the usual suspects who worship big government and despise individual liberty.

I suppose you don't consider a woman's right to choose an "individual liberty." JFK said a "liberal" is someone who looks forward not back. Now Ted Cruz the senator from Canada wishes we had 100 Jesse Helms in the senate. I guess we know what he is looking back to, segregation.

No, Van, the only "nerve" you hit was the one that doesn't think much of McCarthyite smears impugning the patriotism of others.

You flatter yourself. If you look really, really closely - you may have to read it 7 or 8 times - you might note that my comment was in response to Rabbit's, not yours. I care nothing for what you say. You offer nothing of substance. But go ahead and think that you are important to these discussions if it makes you feel better.

Van, you are correct. Patriotism is not relative and public servants ought to be a bit more respectful of those who they "serve".

Whether you're a fan of McCain or not, it would be patently absurd to impugn McCain's patriotism by labeling him "the senator from Al Qaida". But using Van's "logic", McCain, along with the other men I mentioned, are indeed "from Al Qaida". And that claim, no matter how much one dislikes Shaheen, or any other political figure, is an odious one that should be out of bounds. The Syria issue is a complex and serious one that should be free of name-calling. I'd even say Van should issue an apology for that one.

Bruce, speak for your self. Shaheen is the Senator from al Qaida.

Jeanne Shaheen, does not represent New Hampshire. Maybe we can call Shaheen Senator from al-Qaida.

Van, is it possible to disagree without being disagreeable? When can we expect you to use the same terms of endearment for others in Congress who hold the same view on Syria as Shaheen--John MCain, John Boehner, Lindsay Graham, Peter King?

do those named represent NH?

You can't argue with the pompous, those who consider themselves smarter than all others because they read (were not educated in) so called experts writing propaganda.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.