We've Been Here Before

House GOP intel chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan is one of the many House Republicans still in office after voting to put us in Iraq after assurances of weapons of mass destruction just waiting to be used by a vile dictator.  Now he wants to put us in Syria for the same reason.

You're an idiot and a fool if you believe him.

There's mounting evidence that over the last two years the Assad regime has used "at least a small quantity" of chemical weapons against rebel forces in Syria's raging civil war, House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said today on "Face the Nation," adding that the time is now for U.S. intervention.

Amid debate over an alleged chemical weapons attack out of Syria last week, President Obama during a visit to Israel doubled down on his claim that such an attack would be considered a "game changer" for his administration, but qualified that it's important to find out "precisely whether or not this red line was crossed" before making a decision that could lead to an act of war.

"I think that it is abundantly clear that that red line has been crossed," Rogers said. "There is mounting evidence that it is probable that the Assad regime has used at least a small quantity of chemical weapons during the course of this conflict." 

Sure, just like Saddam is going to nuke the Kurds and has mobile weapons labs driving around the desert.  Why is anyone taking this guy seriously, or at least expressing that "Gosh Congressman Rogers, after the Iraq debacle that you voted for, shouldn't the bar for US troops on the ground in Syria be much higher than this?"

Rogers said Mr. Obama "can do this in a way that doesn't lure the United States into a big, boots-on-the-ground conflict." Intervention, he said, "doesn't mean 101st Airborne Division and ships; it means small groups with special capabilities reengaging the opposition, so we can vet them, train them, equip them so they can be an effective fighting force."

"The president went to the Middle East and said, 'This is a hard decision: If I go in, it might be wrong, if I don't go in it might be wrong,'" Rogers said. "Indecision, in this case, is dangerous."

This is true (as Libya proved) but the point still stands.  I still thought Libya was a bad idea, but we got in, got out, and cleaned up after Qaddafi and we were done with it once it happened.  We need an imminent reason to intervene militarily in Syria and even then I damn sure don't see a coalition of folks lining up like there was in Libya, and I'm guessing there's a reason why.

That imminent reason sure is hell not going to be legitimate coming from Mike Rogers.