MEDIA RELEASE
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has announced her strong opposition to a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
She made her decision after returning to Washington early last week for the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the situation in Syria, and attending several classified briefings with Administration officials and meetings with her colleagues in the House and Senate.
She released the following statement:
“I am sickened and outraged by the carnage and loss of lives caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is with gravity that I have carefully considered all the facts, arguments, and evidence and soberly weighed concerns regarding our national security and moral responsibility. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that a U.S. military strike against Syria would be a serious mistake.
“I will therefore vote against a resolution that authorizes the use of military force in Syria. I will also strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
“The reasons behind my decision are many. Here are a few:
* “As a soldier, I understand that before taking any military action, our nation must have a clear tactical objective, a realistic strategy, the necessary resources to execute that strategy—including the support of the American people—and an exit plan. The proposed military action against Syria fails to meet any of these criteria.
* “Presently, Syria does not present a direct security threat to the United States. Military action will undermine our national defense, as even a limited strike could very easily escalate into a regional conflict, stretching thin a military that has been at war for more than 12 years.
* “We should learn from history; we cannot afford to be the world’s policeman. The United States should not insert itself in the midst of this civil war, which is rooted in sectarian hatred and animosity between various warring religious groups.
* “All Americans are saddened and angered by the carnage that has resulted from the use of these chemical weapons. However, even after the many hearings and classified briefings I have attended, I am unconvinced that this military strike would eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons or prevent them from being used again. Indeed, the risk may increase, due to the possibility these weapons could fall into the hands of Syrian opposition group factions such as Al-Qaida, who we can be confident would use them without hesitation.â€
———
Schatz opposes Syria military strike
Sen. Brian Schatz released the following statement:
“I have weighed the expert briefings and analysis, and listened closely to the people of Hawaii. Though all of us are outraged by the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, I have concluded that a military strike against Syria is not the answer. Therefore, I will oppose this resolution.â€
You both have it right. Thank you.
great you could have voted yes but ammended it to read only if he used them again before surrendering and accounting for all his chemical weapons….you could have held the gun to his head now you have what you wanted the ban on chemical weapons is officially unenforced.
a representative that cannot see an opportunity like that is a poor representative indeed!
YOUR VOTE NO WAS A VOTE FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
YOU HAD THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A CONDITIONAL YES
WHY WHY WHY DIDNT YOU DO IT?
We can’t examine the top secret data that our Reps saw, but all the reasons to say ‘No’ are in the article and I agree with them. Now there is talk of Syria giving their CW up to International control. That would negate a reason to attack a country in Civil war with itself.
Mahalo to Tulsi and Brian for listening to your constituencies. Bombing Syria would start WW3, NOBODY wants that [except Obama.]
Would Syria have offered to give up it’s chemical weapons without a creditable threat that we would attack? Personally, I don’t think so.