Surprising no one, Lindsey Graham resorts to fearmongering BS to lead the US into war.
CBS Charlotte: South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.
Graham told reporters in Goose Creek on Tuesday that taking action against Syria in response to the situation is not a question of yes or no, but rather a question of bad or worse choices.
He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.
This is just so wildly absurd, you really don’t know where to start. Let’s try the old tired and stupid “Iran could give nukes to terrorists” scare; no, Iran would not give nukes to terrorists. Ever. Why? Because the sort of terrorists Graham has in mind are unstable and unpredictable cultists who have no allegiance to nations. Handing them a nuke is handing a nuke to a potential enemy. The government of Iran is neither crazy nor stupid, so they’re going to keep any nukes under tight control.
And of course, there’s the little fact that Iran doesn’t actually have any nukes. And the idea that their nuclear research is for nuclear weapons is a matter of some debate. In fact, the Ayatollah — i.e., Iran’s “Supreme Leader” — has said that using nuclear weapons is a “big and unforgiveable sin.” So the “Iran is developing nuclear weapons” idea is entirely theoretical at this point.
Finally, assuming we could “block” anyone from developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, anyone?), what Iran thinks of our resolve would be irrelevant. In that scenario, they’d underestimate us and then we’d block their nuke program. Besides, which is more likely to pop into the Iranian leadership’s minds; the time we didn’t launch a limited strike against Syria or that one time we leveled Baghdad because Bush wanted to store up on “political capital?” If Iran needs proof that we’re freakin’ crazy enough to start swinging, I doubt that Syria is where they’d look to find back up for that assessment. We’ve got a long and dark history of jacking around with the lives of people in the middle east — a history that Iran is well aware of.
So if Graham really wants to make his case, he’s going to have to do a lot better than fearmongering fairy tales about Persian nukes in Charleston. Then again, as a neocon, he may not know any other way.
Lindsey Graham gets credible Tea Party primary challenger.
Post and Courier: Nancy Mace, one of The Citadel’s first two female graduates, is expected to announce Saturday that she will challenge U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in next June’s GOP primary.
Mace has indicated she may run and said Thursday she will make her decision known Saturday morning at the Berkeley County GOP breakfast meeting in Goose Creek.
In a separate news release, the county party said Saturday’s meeting will include “a special guest with a huge announcement for the entire state.”
Mace would be the second official Republican challenger to Graham, who has more than $6.3 million in his campaign warchest but whose willingness to compromise with Democrats has angered some in the GOP base.
If Mace runs, she would be Graham’s second primary challenger. Upstate businessman Richard Cash already has announced that he’s in the race.
If you were around for the Citadel story, you’ll recall that conservatives weren’t exactly Mace’s friends. Now she’s Tea Party. Some people deal with bullying by fighting back, others escape by joining the bullies’ team, I guess.
Mace is being called a credible threat to Graham in the South Carolina primary — and she probably is. What’s not being said is that he’s probably also a shoe-in in the general. So if Republican voters do boot him, he can take the route of his old friend Joe Lieberman, found a “S. Carolina for Graham” party, and win the general as a third party candidate. Republicans would almost certainly allow him to caucus with them, because the numbers in the Senate are so tight they can’t afford to lose any members. A Lieberman-style sore loser run would be nearly guaranteed to come without consequence.
Sen. Graham: I need an AR-15 because [insert paranoid fantasy here].
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says that if his family were victims of disasters like Hurricane Katrina then they would need to have military-style AR-15 assault rifles to protect themselves against “armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods.”
During a hearing Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, the South Carolina Republican pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about his support for a proposed assault weapons ban.
“Can you imagine a circumstance where an AR-15 would be a better defense tool than, say, a double-barrel shotgun?” Graham asked. “Let me give you an example, that you have an lawless environment, where you have an natural disaster or some catastrophic event — and those things unfortunately do happen, and law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you imagine a situation where your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 vs. a double-barrel shotgun?”
Holder pointed out that the senator was “dealing with a hypothetical in a world that doesn’t exist.”
“I’m afraid that world does exist,” Graham insisted. “It existed in New Orleans, to some extent up in Long Island [after Hurricane Sandy], it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are — discharges.”
No, it didn’t exist post-Katrina nor did it exist post-Sandy. The closest thing that I can think of to armed gangs was New Orleans cops using Katrina as cover for a series of racist killings. Somehow, I doubt Lindsey’s got much to worry about on that point. He seems better protected by his skin color than he could ever hope to be by an assault weapon.
The larger problem here is that this use of hypotheticals is completely illogical. You can use a hypothetical to justify anything: “What if a rogue elephant showed up and started stomping on schoolkids and I didn’t have a bazooka to blow it up? Do you want that? Why do you hate innocent children?” When arguments start to turn this way, you know the one doing the arguing is (excuse the expression) out of ammo. This is, quite literally, just making stuff up to defend your position. When that happens, you’ve lost.
Lindsey Graham can’t defend his position on assault weapons. He’s just throwing out horseshit now.