Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, January 21, 2019

Paul Ryan Reverses Position On ‘Red Line,’ Declares Opposition To Military Intervention In Syria

Paul Ryan Reverses Position On ‘Red Line,’ Declares Opposition To Military Intervention In Syria

U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the latest congressman to voice his opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan on Syria, which could involve military strikes.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Ryan said “I believe the president’s proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. In fact, I fear it will make things worse.”

The statement comes the morning after President Obama addressed the nation to make his case for military intervention in Syria if a diplomatic solution to the crisis cannot be reached.

The conflict in Syria has dominated the news since the White House condemned Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for authorizing the use of chemical weapons against his own people, crossing the “red line” President Obama had described in August 2012 as “seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

A few days after the president established his “red line,” Paul Ryan — then the running mate of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney — stated that he and the GOP were in agreement with Obama.

“I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists, whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies,” Ryan affirmed just days after Obama issued his “red line” warning, according to NBC.

Now the Republican congressman, who is also chairman of the House Budget Committee, believes that the “best punishment” for Assad’s “war crimes is for moderate elements of the opposition to prevail.”

His newfound opposition to the possible military strikes comes after weeks of remaining relatively mum on the issue, even as the president spent weeks referencing the red line in his argument for military intervention, and House leaders Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) expressed their support for the plan.

Ryan explains that he has taken his position because he finds the president’s plan “ill-conceived” and “half-hearted,” and claims it will make “America look weak, when we need to be strong.”

The Republican congressman also criticized the president’s request that Congress delay a vote on granting him authorization for military intervention -– a delay that stems from a Russian-led plan that could result in Assad placing all chemical weapons under international control. He said that the president “lacks a clear strategy” and is “following Russia’s lead.”

In stark disagreement with the president, Ryan concluded the plan “will merely curse the past, when we need to protect the future.”

Photo: Gage Skidmore via

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 83

8 responses to “Paul Ryan Reverses Position On ‘Red Line,’ Declares Opposition To Military Intervention In Syria”

  1. Lynda Groom says:

    Translation: Which way is the wind blowing. Does the man have any core values?

    • sigrid28 says:

      Ryan’s core values center around satisfying his Koch Bros. benefactors so he can continue to be re-elected by the Republican base in Wisconsin, information-challenged voters so pre-occupied with hatred of a black president they fail to realize that they are voting against their self-interest.

    • John Pigg says:

      Yes, he has many core values. Unfortunately they are all exclusively related to defunding social programs while at the same time granting tax cuts.

      Typical Republicans are surprised at how popular privacy rights, and peace are. But that won’t stop them for jumping on for the ride.

  2. TZToronto says:

    WHAT WAS I THINKING?? AGREE WITH OBAMA??? I forgot that if he says up, I say down; if he says over, I say under . . . Now I’ve got it!! Gee, that was close.

  3. Dominick Vila says:

    In addition to being an opportunist, Rep Paul Ryan is the tail wagging the dog and a politician incapable to understand the nuances of foreign policy. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he, like so many other politicians in Washington, is as far removed from the likes of Churchill, Roosevelt, and now Barack Obama, as the rest of us are from the farthest nebulae.
    Tough talk is an integral part of the strategy that statesmen use to achieve their goal. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Bashar al-Assad would have made the concessions they have put on the table without the tough stand taken by President Obama. The world is safer thanks to the wisdom and vision shown by our President who, perhaps not surprisingly, continues to be maligned or criticized by those whose only contribution to problem solving is to say no to anything he does or proposes.

    • John Pigg says:

      Tough talk is an integral portion of foreign policy, but so is diplomacy. I don’t think your view is correct that Obama was using coercion to begin diplomatic negotiations, if so then that is truly puzzling.

      I think the administration realized they lacked support to make a unilateral attack so they passed the buck to congress, and then upon realizing that they lacked support in not only the House but the Senate, opted to examine diplomatic talks.

      It is far to early to tell whether the world is safer or not, we will have to wait to see how it plays out. But I remain sorely unconvinced that this was part of a master plan to bring them to the table. If the American people didn’t get upset the bombs would have dropped before labor day.

  4. docb says:

    Another ‘for it before the President was and Now against it’… Such sterling standards and principles…To be expected of the repub bagger! Leading from the rear!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.