Dan Rather Agrees With Ron Paul in Opposing War With Syria
Appearing as a guest on Thursday's Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN, former CBS News anchor expressed agreement with GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul in opposing U.S. involvement in the civil war in Syria to protect the civilian population from the terror regime of authoritarian ruler, President Bashar Assad. After describing what he believes should be done to put pressure on Assad, he brought up Congressman Paul's left-leaning views on the Middle East:
However, and, by the way, this is one reason that Ron Paul continues to do reasonably well in the Republican race, Ron Paul says this is - in essence, he says, "This is madness. We don't need another war. We don't want another war. We can't afford another war. And if you went to war in Syria, if you went to war with the military option, there's no telling where it would lead."
The former CBS Evening News anchor then divulged his own view: "About that, my own personal opinion is he's probably right. And American public opinion is not going to be behind any big military intervention in Syria."
Below is video of the relevant portion of the Thursday, February 9, Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why is staying out of war now "left leaning"?
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:56am.
I am continually amazed that a Constitutional view is described as "left leaning" by those on the right who would rather ignore the Constitution on the issue.
Why do we care (as a country) what happens in or to Syria? They are not an ally, they are not a trading partner, they are an enemy of one of our best allies, and they are a totalitarian regime. It is way past time for the US to stop trying to be the policeman and social worker of the world. Let them work it out themselves. Cease all trade with them, and tell other countries who do trade with them (Russia) that if they keep up the massacres on their own civilian population, we will curtail trade with them as well.
Since when did the term "Conservative" come to mean rushing into military confrontations with countries who are insignificant to us?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I totally agree with you, c5then
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:02am.
Syria was a French mandate between the world wars. Let the French help the Arabs sort it out. we don't have a dog in that fight.
I find it a bit odd that I agree with both Ron Paul and Dan Rather on this one, but I do.
Conservatism doesn't mean committing our armed forces to every hell-hole in the world.
Absolutely
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:16pm.
This isn't even remotely our business. Those who would send our people there should pause for a minute and ask themselves if it's worth the life of their son (mine's in Afghanistan right now propping up an anti-American muslim government). Remember where the Israelis, the satellite observations and former Iraqi military said the WMDs went??????
Why help out the Syrians
Submitted by kraythe on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:21pm.
Their current leadership notwithstanding, they will hold rallies with thousands of jubilant supporters chanting "Death to America." That is the general view of America in the middle east. There is nothing about Sharia law authoritarian countries that is compatible with American culture. Let the Syrians fight it out amongst themselves.
In the meantime let's get our own oil so we can tell the middle east to go fly a kite in a thunderstorm. I think Ron Paul's foreign policy is mostly a disaster but I agree with the "we can't get involved in every conflict" point of view. People have been killing each other in third world countries for generations, it is not our place nor in our interest to mediate every two bit thug in the world. We tried that in Egypt and now they have sharia law and are takine american hostages.
On this one, I am with Paul, and anyone calling me a liberal is off their rocker.
I always find it funny how Ron Paul thinks it's okay for
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:10am.
our enemies to destroy because somehow it's our fault. No matter how you flush it down, it still comes out as the same b.s.
That kind of thinking is of the extreme left and makes it hard for me to vote for him.
I argued with one Paulbot over this one time and they say Thomas Jefferson and other founders wanted us to be an isolationist nation, similar to Switzerland. However, that is not necessarily true at all and one, does not state that in the constitution, two, is a part of leader's foreign policy not mandated by any other means, and three, Thomas Jefferson was the envoy to France who brought down the Barbary pirates. The last one if important because I got that thrown in my face as an example of an isolationist US president. Oh by the way, he was a democrat.
So as the Paulbots like to spout off "Do you research" and "Know your history." They may want to take their own advice and "did you know that Ron Paul works for the federal government?"
I disagree with your historical analogy
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:47am.
Isolationism has to do with avoiding "foreign entanglements" (to paraphrase George Washington), or to put it a better way, to avoid participating in other nation's affairs and conflicts that have no bearing on the US.
Jefferson's naval campaign against the Barbary pirates was not counter-isolationist. It was a direct response to Barbary taxation and confiscation of US ships, crews, and cargos in the Mediterranean. We weren't coming to the aid of any other nation, even though other nations were also being victimized. We were defending American lives and property and our freedom of the seas.
Don't confuse isolationism with pacifism.
Calling anyone who disagrees
Submitted by kraythe on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:28pm.
Calling anyone who disagrees with you a "Paulbot" as a disparagement is not in the best tradition of American debate.
I am not even close to a Paul supporter, I wouldn't want him to be president except if he was the only alternative to Obama. However, I agree with him on one thing. We need to not intervene in every two bit civil conflict in the world and especially when the people involved hate our guts.
Support allies that share our values, such as Isreal, and ignore the morons that don't unless they pose a legitimate threat to ourselves or our allies. The syrian civil war doesn't fall into either one of those.
And again, if we could get our own oil right under our feet, we wouldn't need the middle east.
You can well imagine where the world would be
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:53am.
if these morons were decision makers and the US was deciding if it should go after Hilter...
Really dude?
Submitted by permagrin on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:52am.
Hitler? That's the best you got in declaring folks morons....Hitler? If you are gonna do that at least throw in the speaking German line. Can someone please go down the list of the 250+ countries of the world and provide a list of those we should go to war with? Or do we decide based on the news cycle cause that is totally not moronic.
250+ countries, really, dude?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:36pm.
If you're gonna do that, at least get your facts straight, there are 193 countries in the world, or if you're really lazy, less than 200. HUGE difference between that and 250.
Unless you're one of those idiots who think there are 300 billion people in the world or something, but I just picked a number at random without any reality behind it.
-Jon
"My own personal opinion"?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:27am.
As opposed to what, "My official MSM opinion taken from the WH talking points"?
BTW, why the courtesy of identifying Dangerous Dan as "former CBS News anchor"? Why not give him the MSM treatment conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, etc., get: "former CBS News anchor who was forced to resign in disgrace"?
Yeah, that has a nice ring to it.
We can't afford another war
Submitted by Vonu on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:11pm.
is now left leaning. Let me get ahead of the curve here. Invade Canda! You just know sooner or later they will deserve it.
left wing?
Submitted by rinohunter on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:27am.
I didn't see Syrians protesting when insurgents and car bombs were flowing over their border into Iraq. I don't have to be left wing to not care about Syria.