Gov. Scott Walker Wouldn't Rule Out U.S. Boots on the Ground In Syria

ABC News ^ | 2/1/2015 | Jessica Puckett

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has surged to the top of the potential GOP field, said on "This Week" Sunday that he wouldn't rule out putting U.S. boots on the ground in Syria if he were the commander-in-chief.

...

[Timber Rattler]

The last thing we need is “boots on the ground” in Syria. Walker drunk the McCain kool-aid.

[TLI]

Walker said. “I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.” Gov Scott Walker (R) Wisconsin on 'This Week' Walker also said the United States should “aggressively” take the fight to ISIS to prevent a potential attack on the U.S.

“I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action,” he said.

Close enough for me.

.

[P-Marlowe]

Why would he rule out military action anywhere?

What kind of a question is that anyway?

As commander in chief you keep all options open all the time.

[Son House]

Well by golly he may be onto something being we’ve already got Troops going back to Iraq because of someone’s bad judgement...

[hinckley buzzard]

"He has went," has he. Geez. The only prudent response is to leave all options open. If he should be elected he will then have a decision to make, and the circumstances no doubt will be different from what they are now. No reason to discuss strategy at this point.

[P-Marlowe]

The last thing we need is “boots on the ground” in Syria.

It may be the last thing we need, but you still keep your options open. It may indeed be the "last thing we need." It may come to that someday.

[Wilderness Conservative]

That’s too bad. Assad is better left in power.Never thought I would say it but I miss Qadaffi. He’s not our friend but he knows how to deal with the savages.

[DoodleDawg]

What say you about this?

Highly disappointing.

[Menthops]

When we look back on events a year from now, we will note that this week was Scott Walker’s “high water mark”. He has set expectations incredibly high in Iowa, and as a neighboring Midwestern governor, if he does not win Iowa in a landslide (and he won’t), his campaign will implode. If he can’t win Iowa convincingly, he can’t win elsewhere. He could not deliver Wisconsin for Romney, could he?

[kidd]

I am all for Ted Cruz, but slamming Scott Walker is not necessary.

Are you suggesting that Walker should have said, “Boots on the ground, in Syria, is off the table”?

That would be more Obama-like than Obama.

Walker made the right response.

[EDINVA]

How, exactly, do you see yourself “raising Cruz up?” I’m missing it altogether. And, if attention of the news media is a criteria, Walker has a lot of catching up to do to get anywhere near Cruz.

When Sen. Cruz is asked the same exact question, as surely he will be, and answers that he wouldn’t take any options off the table, what will you say? He’d be a fool to say anything else, and one thing he is not is a fool.

[kidd]

He could not deliver Wisconsin for Romney, could he?

There are Freepers who support Ted Cruz because he is a fighter and a great conservative.

Then there are Freepers who make idiotic statements by attacking Cruz's potential opponents, making Cruz's supporters look like political hacks.

Romney couldn't win Wisconsin because he's Mitt Romney.
Romney couldn't win Florida because he's Mitt Romney.
Romney was a terrible candidate, and attacking Walker for Romney's shortcomings makes you look like a political hack. This does not help Ted Cruz.

I support Cruz first. I don't see the point in making Cruz supporters look stupid.

[marron]

I wasn’t #12...

I don’t know if the MSM is obsessed with Walker since I don’t watch TV news much anymore. But if they are, its probably that they are looking for a wedge against Cruz. I think GOPe is looking for the same thing, a way to split the conservatives to give Bush clear sailing. So they’ll promote Huck to bleed off social conservatives, and Walker to split whats left.

Which is not to say Walker is a bad guy. He has proven himself to be a fighter, and fearless at that. He’s not very charismatic, which may be another reason they might prefer him to Cruz.

But he answered the question appropriately in my view, and I doubt Cruz will answer it any differently. ISIS and the jihadist world in general are at war with us. If we can find proxies to fight them, great. But its the old Hitler adage: Would you rather fight him when he is a nobody or wait until he is a serious threat? Hopefully, we can find proxies to support and keep the war at arm’s length but there is no guarantee since Obama has made such a mess of things over there.

In any case, I think Cruz and Walker together would make a wonderful team. So while I’m all in for Cruz, thats not a strike against any other conservative candidate who might wind up being his #2.

[SoConPubbie]

I’m all for Cruz but we don’t need more of this self destructive crap. Now Walker is the enemy? Not.

Another Red Herring.

No-one said he is the enemy, just not the right man for POTUS.

He has done some great things for Wisconsin, but he is not a principled conservative, he is a pragmatic conservative, which means if he thinks he is going to take enough flak, he won't fight for or support a conservative policy position.

Scott Walker to tea partiers: Let’s focus on taking out Democrats, not our fellow Republicans

Scott Walker: Gay Marriage Fight Is 'Over In Wisconsin'

Walker Says Legislature Shouldn't Focus On Right-To-Work Bill Next Session

YouTube Link: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, in his own words, endorses a path to citizenship for Illegal Aliens and an Open-Border Policy in July of last year.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

‘zackly.

[Sola Veritas]

“More than anything, we need a person who has had REVELANT military experience in actually commanding troops in battle, and done so honorably.”

Military types (especially those that “commanded”) don’t necessarily make good presidents. Besides where are we going to get such a person? Not as many vets in congress, etc.

Please do not take my observation as a criticism of you or an endorsement of Walker (I know next to nothing about the man). I just noticed your comment and thought it worth addressing.

We have all got to be very careful about letting the press shoot down potential candidates (or even having a quick to shoot response ourselves). Be it Cruz, Palin, Perry, Huckabee, Jindal, or even Bush, et. Al.

[Sioux-san]

If all thug dictators should be ousted, we ought clean our own house first.

[virgil]

Yeah. Let’s not let the democrats and their operatives in the media pick our candidates for us.

[Sola Veritas]

“There are Freepers who support Ted Cruz because he is a fighter and a great conservative....Then there are Freepers who make idiotic statements by attacking Cruz’s potential opponents, making Cruz’s supporters look like political hacks.”

AMEN to that. It seems that there is NO limit to the lies or distortions of another candidate’s views that will not be used by (some here on FR) “Cruz” supporters. They DO NOT help Ted Cruz, they just build ill will. As an example, they will pillor Santorum or Huckabee because they fear either of those men many pull social conservative votes away from Cruz. While those men may initially do so, Ted Cruz WILL need those voters that initially go for those primarily social conservative candidates (and the endorsement of those candidates). Insulting these candidates does not help Ted Cruz in the long run.

Of course, you are talking about Walker, and for some reason you mentioned Romney....but the logic holds.

Those ardent Ted Cruz supporters should FOCUS ON HOW GOOD TED CRUZ IS, NOT ON HOW BAD HIS OPPONENTS ARE.

[Lorianne]

To do what?

Protect some Muslims we don’t know and can’t trust from other Muslims we don’t know and can’t trust?

That doesn’t seem very smart to me. He should outline the for us under what circumstances he would do this and what the exact objective is.

This is no longer 2003