Apparently, the gentleman from the third Congressional District thinks we should nuke Syria, and that he himself is the man for the job.
Now we know where Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) thinks the weapons of mass destruction are buried: in Syria, which he said he’d like to nuke to smithereens.Speaking at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, on Feb. 19, Johnson told the crowd that he explained his theory to President Bush and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) on the porch of the White House one night.
Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ‘em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”
UPDATE: The Carpetbagger Report has one more line from that Roll Call article: "The crowd roared with applause." I guess the featured sermon that day did not discuss the thou-shalt-not-kill commandment.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on February 28, 2005 to Iraq attack | TrackBackI'm sorry, but I don't see where the problem is with nuking Syria.
Well, except for the fact that the Baker Institute would lose its #1 patron. Boo hoo for them, eh.
Posted by: Laurence Simon on February 28, 2005 10:20 PMChuck, get a grip man. Take a glass of warm milk, and you'll feel better in the morning.
Sam Johnson is a true American hero, a 7-YEAR POW, and one of the most decorated military men in Congress.
The true question you should be asking yourself is: Is Sam Johnson correct about Syria possessing large stockpiles of WMD's destined for Al Qaeda and the enemies of America?
If the answer is yes, there will be a lot more standing ovations when he mentions flying over and turning the place to glass.
Posted by: Chris Elam on February 28, 2005 11:44 PMOnce, I got to shake Sam Johnson's hand, that's one hell of a man.
If you'd like, Chuck, maybe we can arrange it so you can insult him to his face.
Posted by: Rob Booth on March 1, 2005 5:58 AMSo, Chris, did you favor nuking Iraq in 2003 when we all "knew" that Saddam had WMDs? If so, was President Bush wrong to order an invasion instead? If not, how is Syria different?
I agree that Sam Johnson served his country with courage and valor. If this is what he believes, though, he's stark raving nuts. Sorry.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on March 1, 2005 6:54 AMRob, I'm sorry, but with all due respect, to advocate dropping nukes on another country is pretty damn drastic. What Sam Johnson gave us here is crazy talk. It's not acceptable.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on March 1, 2005 7:19 AMChuck -
Don't give clowns like those who wrote above "due respect" -- they don't deserve it.
And, Johnson isn't stark, raving nuts -- he's batshit crazy and needs to be reprimanded by the GOP leadership. His past as a POW shouldn't matter to them - it didn't matter to the Bushies when they went after McCain, did it? The story about his "black child" was truly compassionate conservatism in action!
I'm sick of rightwingers parsing every word any Democrat might say and letting their fellow travelers say whatever they want without any repercussions. Johnson's past valor and bravery shouldn't innoculate him from being criticized for this despicable idea.
Even my crazy fellow West Texans aren't for nuking entire countries because of the evil deeds of their leadership. They understand individual rights and responsibilities and believe they will have to meet their maker someday. Most wouldn't want the blood of innocents on their hands.
Posted by: R Mitchell on March 1, 2005 9:39 AMWow, that's one very novel defense of Sam Johnson's quintessential batshit-itude. "He was a 7-year POW." I respect the guy an awful lot for that. Yet it doesn't change the fact that he said something worthy of the "Did he really say something so unf^%&ingbelievably stupid?" award.
Hitler was a very brave soldier and was badly wounded in World War I-- he was a tough hombre. Does this somehow make his genocidal hobbies later in his career justifiable? And don't start up with Conway's Law, b/c the comparison here is justified: Johnson was effectively advocating a genocide against the Syrian people, pure and simple. Even if he was just being a tough-talking windbag, it was still an unbelievably stupid thing to say, since-- being the words of an elected US legislator-- they have some officialdom attached to them and will no doubt reverberate ad nauseum throughout the world.
It's even worse b/c Syria has done absolutely nothing against the US; in fact, Syria has been rendering the USA enormous help in the fight against al-Qaeda, sharing files on Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers and helping to track down Qaeda suspects. And they're not themselves nuclear (oh, sorry, "nucular") armed. Yet in Johnson's apparently lone brain cell, Syria is "anti-democratic" (or some other unforgivable foible), and so the way to solve this is to... nuke 'em. Yeah, why not just nuke half the damn world? I'm sure we could find some bullshit reason to get pissed off at everybody.
Every time I go abroad, I have to do everything I can to hide the fact that I'm an American these days (speak French, Japanese, German, avoid wearing those stars-and-stripes boxers and so forth), and it's statements like this that make me understand why it's arrived at this.
Posted by: Wes Ulm on March 1, 2005 5:07 PMChuck, you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that Rep. Johnson is sincerely advocating nuking Syria? You think this wasn't one of those things we right-wingers say to try and make liberals wet their pants?
Posted by: Rob Booth on March 2, 2005 5:56 AMRob, if that was his intent, then I admit it - he got me. It would be nice to hear him clarify that point. I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on March 2, 2005 7:19 AMWell I don't think Sam Johnson would take kindly to North Korea saying it ought to nuke Texas and turn the whole place to glass. That wouldn't be a guy saying something to another guy to make them wet their pants, it would be a threat, and would provoke a response. Politiciaan's should know better than to say stupid things like that, they could provoke a response. If there were actually WMDs in Syria, which is a joke, we would see them raining all over Israel. Same reason it was so obvious the WMDs were not in Iraq. The WMDs aren't in Iraq or Syria or Iran , they are in Israel.
So the question is whether Sam Johnson is Bat Shit Nuts or just Totally Irresponsable as a politician.
The true question you should be asking yourself is: Is Sam Johnson correct about Syria possessing large stockpiles of WMD's destined for Al Qaeda and the enemies of America?
The answer to that question is obviously: No.
The true question we should be asking ourselves is: Why do wingnuts like Sam Johnson, Chris Elam, and apparently, a disturbingly large number of residents of Allen, Texas, actually entertain even the possibility such a completely ridiculous notion, given the complete and utter lack of evidence for it?
The answer to that question is tougher, but I think it boils down to the fact that they simply can't believe their Messiah lied to them! If W. said Saddam had WMDs, it simply must have been true! There IS no other explanation! Therefore, the WMDs must still exist - somewhere. Since we turned Iraq upside down and couldn't find them, they must have been spirited away to a neighboring country like Syria or Iran.
To those of us who are sane, this fantasy doesn't even pass the laugh test: Saddam Hussein, facing imminent invasion over his WMDs, decides that, rather than USING them against the invaders, it would be better to give them away! And somehow, despite all our military sattelites (not to mention UNMOVIC) watching his every move, he manages to do this without our ever having an inkling of what he's up to!
Yes, our "intelligence" was so good we KNEW Saddam had WMDs, but nonetheless somehow missed his spiriting them away to Syria!
Meanwhile, as the wingnuts indulge their anti-Arab fantasies, al-Qaida may very well be acquiring real WMDs from places like Russia, not because Russia is anti-American, but because they actually have WMDs, and it's a big country which is pretty hard to police perfectly.
Posted by: Mathwiz on March 3, 2005 3:16 PMThe true question is actually "Why do we continue to be represented in Congress by people who think that a nuclear first strike based on intution is justified?" Congressman Johnson is a nonaccomplished politicrat who has served 15 years in Washington and has done nest to nothing in that job. He is not a member of House leadership, he does not chair any committee and he has written no piece of major legislation. He is widely viewed by his peers as a lightweight on issues, and a pawn of special interests to anyone who cares enough to examine his record. Look at his campaign finances and you will find that he took more than $800k from accounting firms and medical insurance companies in the last election cycle, an election that featured no Democrat candidate.
I live in the 3rd district, and am active in Republican politics, and I am embarrassed by the level of representation we receive in Washington.
My understanding from the Dallas Morning News is that Johnson says he meant this statement as a joke. We can debate if this was an appropriate joke. I think it was inappropriate. Yet, as a thirty something male, I find that I encounter a lot of men from Johnson's generation who occasionally make jokes that I think cross the line.
My understanding is that many of the persons at this event were persons from Johnson's generation. These were not members of Suncreek UMC. One does not find a large number of senior citizens in the west area of Allen. I think these persons attended at the invitation of some younger men at the church. The intentions of these younger men were good. I would caution against blaming the church for Johnson's statement or the applause by some of those in attendance following this joke. Read this link (http://www.suncreekumc.org/umm/2005Veterans_Breakfast.htm) to discover what the pastor said at this event and reach your own conclusion about the values of this church.