On WMAL this morning, Congressman Jim Moran, (aka, the Alexandria, VA town drunk), was busy making his case for his president's rush to unilateral war in Syria.
"The vast majority of my constituents are opposed," Moran admitted in an interview Thursday with WMAL's Mornings on the Mall. "You have to make a call in terms of whether you're going to be fully representative of your constituents, or you're going to try to show some leadership on an issue like this, and this is one where I feel strongly enough," he added.When I listen to him or any of these other Born Again Hawks, I'm astounded at the hypocrisy. Moron used vitriolic as well as anti-Semitic language against the War in Iraq, and even accused our military of ethnic cleansing. That doesn't include other slurs against the US military this jerk has used. Now, just because his President got his butt in a sling with the "red line" comment he's tried to disavow, he's beating his chest and waving the flag.
Moran says the U.S. has no choice but to respond to what he believes is clear evidence of chemical weapon use against civilians in Syria.
"If we don't what are the consequences? I think the consequences are dire, not as much for today, but for our children tomorrow. I don't want my kids and grandkids living in a world where weapons of mass destruction are the new norm of war-fighting," he said.
The 22-year Congressman believes his constituents oppose a strike on Syria because they feel burned by the U.S. war in Iraq, which killed or injured thousands of American soldiers.
"They were in favor of the Iraq invasion when I was opposed to it, and I felt just as strongly that the facts and history would bear out my judgment," said Moran, who believes the same line of thinking was behind Great Britain's decision not to get involved. When WMAL's Larry O'Connor asked Moran if he believed Britain had abdicated its responsibility by opting out, he responded, "Yes actually, I do."
"I think that their decision is largely a repercussion from the Iraq war, and I think the opposition on the part of the Congress and the people of the United States is largely the ramifications of the Iraq war, which turned out to have been a mistake," said Moran. "There's no question in my mind that had Britain not supported the Iraq war and been misled by (then-Prime Minister) Tony Blair, that they would have been more than anxious to stand alongside us in this Syria conflict," he added.
Moran told WMAL many of his colleagues in Congress are also reticent to give their support for an attack because they fear similarities to the Iraq war. If Congress ultimately votes down an authorization to strike, does Moran believe the President will go forward with the strike anyway?
"I just don't know," said Moran. "I would have thought that he would have upheld the credibility of the United States and the viability of his Presidency by acting as he thought was necessary, rather than leaving the fate of our reputation and his Presidency in the hands of a Congress that has proven itself at every turn to disappoint him and the American people," he added.
Sorry Jim, some of us don't forget your past. You didn't swear an oath to protect the President, you swore one to the Constitution.