Since President Donald Trump authorized a cruise missile strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Democrats have been firing back with their criticisms.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) called the decision “unconstitutional.” Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) supported Gabbard's assessment and made the claim that Trump lacks a “coherent strategy.” Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the attack on Syria is “an act of war,” which is up for debate as plenty of presidents have authorized the use of military force without Congressional approval.
But Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX) took the cake in comments with this head-turning claim:
A quick look at the 2016 presidential campaign shows this new rhetoric is a major shift in Democrats' thinking on Syria.
Back when Hillary Clinton was the Democratic presidential nominee, she was pushing for ground troops in Syria, via the LA Times:
“A more effective air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient,” Clinton said. “We should be honest that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces” to take back the territory that Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has conquered in Syria and Iraq.
Then there's Mike Morell, former Deputy Director of the CIA, who told PBS's Charlie Rose after endorsing Clinton that he wanted to kill “Iranians and Russians covertly” and bomb Assad's government buildings. According to NBC News, had Clinton won, she would have picked Morell to head the CIA.
Going back to 2013, when Assad used chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee had a different perspective: she supported ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's resolution for intervention. As the National Review reported:
Take Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee, who is now supporting the resolution. Not only did she oppose the Iraq War, she actually filed a lawsuit along with other Democrats to try to prevent the president from launching it.
In a speech in New York on the day of the attack, Clinton said that we need to “take out” Assad's airfields.
So if Clinton would have won the presidency, we would likely be much more involved in Syria than we are now.
The question is: Would she be receiving the same treatment that President Trump is getting for taking an even more aggressive role? Or does it all boil down to a hyper-partisan double standard?