As usual, AL Rep. Mo Brooks put tribal party politics over the best interests of the United States when he voted against a successful bipartisan resolution condemning Trump for his rash and impetuous decision to pull US forces out of Northern Syria. In effect, this has given Turkey a green light to attack and decimate, our staunch allies, the Kurds, who lost thousands of lives in the war against ISIS. It’s also allowed Russia to take strategic military positions in bases previously held by American troops. Brooks’ vote showed that he’s just fine with abandoning US allies.
The odd and pleasantly surprising thing was that both Republicans and Democrats in the Alabama Congressional delegation voted for the measure. The only Alabama hold-outs were Republicans, Rep. Mo Brooks, and Rep. Bradley Byrne.
Byrne’s had a pathetic excuse for his vote.
“There are many parts of this resolution I agree with, but criticizing the president for making a tough decision prioritizing the safety of our troops is not one of them,” Byrne said. “Rather than rushing this resolution to the floor, Democrats should be working together in a bipartisan manner to sanction Turkey for their actions.”
Well, except for the fact that Trump didn’t even bother to consult his own military advisors or US allies before making this “tough” decision. Yeah, except for that part.
Oh, and God forbid anyone dares to offer any Trump criticism that could lead to name-calling, juvenile tweet. Oh, that would be just awful.
Brooks, on the other hand, gave his twisted rationale on the Republican echo-chamber, WVNN’s Dale Jackson Show.
“To me, it was inevitable that whenever America reduced its presence in the Middle East, as we should because we cannot afford to be the police cop on every corner, that violence would break out,” Brooks said. “I support any kind of decision to reduce our presence in these countries that do not appreciate our loss of life, our financial expenditures, in their countries.
So, it’s ok for America to go back on its word and abruptly walk away from its allies that were instrumental in defeating ISIS? Does Brooks think that it’s cool that the Russians have taken over the strategic military positions held by the US in a matter of days since Trump’s incredibly dumb decision? Does Brooks really think this is going to end well or that this move won’t cost the US much later?
Brooks used to love making economic cases for all kinds of his bizarre, but extremely partisan schemes and decisions. But then, just like Kim Jong-Un and ‘sooo’ many others, he fell in love with Trump’s “great and unmatched wisdom.” Suddenly, he’s just fine with Trump’s decision to explode the nation’s debt and deficit to historic levels. Now, he’s pretending that the minimal US troop presence in the region was somehow ultra-expensive. It’s funny that Brooks didn’t mention how Trump simultaneously made the decision to send an additional couple of thousand US soldiers to Saudia Arabia because, um, Iran.
Is it somehow cheaper and less dangerous to send troops to a country known to finance and harbor terrorists? Maybe, Brooks is saying that the Saudis appreciate our loss of life and our financial expenditures a whole lot more than those unappreciative Kurds?
Or, he could just be kissing the rump of Trump. Again.
Let’s be clear, Brooks is keenly aware of polls that show Trump’s approval rating is highest in Alabama and Brooks has repeatedly shown that he’s the chief coal shoveler on the Trump Train – as it barrels toward the cliff of impeachment.
Brooks voted to abandon our allies and no amount of spin or carefully parsed partisan rhetoric can justify that. As they say, with friends like that, who needs enemies?