That's Lindsay, 3rd from the left.
Posted on 09/19/2013 5:10:52 PM PDT by steelhead_trout
Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president's plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.
Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force -- not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News' Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn't intervene.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
We need to get rid of light in the loafers Lindsey sooner not later.
Does the Senate have an exile island???
Brave little faggot aint he. He’s gonna lead the troops right? put his candy @$$ out there on the line?
No?
...then shut up Nancy!!!
That's Lindsay, 3rd from the left.
For votes!!!
The problem again is the people of SC. 42 percent back him no matter what, and that’s a majority in SC because he can easily convince the extra 9 percent to come aboard.
...believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.Yes, of course it will.
1. The reason ohaha has not taken on Syria is because he has come down on the side of Iran ever since he stepped foot in office, much to the chagrine of the saudis, whereas mccain and graham fall on the side of the saudis. ohaha has been between a rock and a hard place trying to walk the fine line between the two, but it ain’t working.
2. gw was a saudi guy and ohaha has given Iraq to iran as well as afghanistan.
What about the annihilation of Iran and all its people? Linda, if it’s worth doing let’s git er dun, what say you?
...believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.
Yes, of course it will.
&&&
Pretty sure that is the goal of the Soros Administration, as led by Comrade Jarrett.
Well, you know?! I’ve been wondering the same thing. Are they THAT drunk with love of power and money that they’d turn Hanoi Jane on us? Or is it more than that? It’ll come out one day, i suppose.
For the record, Zero’s foreign policy has been atrocious, but GW gave Iraq to Iran by deposing the one man who could stand up to it, Saddam Hussein. Once he was gone, the Shiite majority took over, and we know where their loyalties lie. As for Afghanistan, it will forever be no man’s land, and if the Shiite Persians try running the show there, well, good luck with that. And sorry, but W didn’t do a whole lot to stop nuke development in either Iran or North Korea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.