- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,356
- Reaction score
- 49,391
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Okay, I'll prove it.
15th February 2011 was the start of it all in Libya.
Republicans upset with Obama's regime change remarks - CNN.com
"When U.S. President Barack Obama said Monday it would be wrong to seek regime change in Libya by force, Republican lawmakers took issue -- saying removing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is and should be precisely the goal." March 29, 2011
""The reason why we wage wars is to achieve the results of a policy that we state," McCain said."
"Overall, however, McCain said Obama made a "strong case" for the military effort in Libya and laid out the reasons why the president thought it was important to intervene."
McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com
"McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya" April 22, 2011
"Libyan opposition leaders received a major morale boost Friday when a top U.S. senator made a surprise visit to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and urged greater American involvement in the bloody campaign to oust strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
The visit from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, came a day after the United States said it was deploying predator drones to Libya."
In Syria it all kicked off on the 15th March 2011.
Oh this is massively frustrating. I'm struggling to find the things I found before. Even went back to an old political forum and the search function hardly works, and Google is throwing up so much rubbish it's ridiculous. Type in McCain and Syria and the only thing with McCain in it is to do with Libya.
Anyway, McCain was essentially giving reasons they the US should not go into Syria at this time, in total contrast to what he said with Libya.
Here's McCain two years later talking about arming rebels, no talk of bombing.
John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria | World news | The Guardian
"
This article is more than 6 years old John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria"
Hmm. I'm not seeing any proof of an oil motivation for toppling Qaddafi. What I'm seeing are ambiguous and less than clear reasoning to do so from the then administration. I'm also seeing legitimate concerns expressed from Republicans.