Right-wing agit-prop site Breitbart News ran a notable short piece today, celebrating Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado’s earlier appearance this morning on Fox News to explain his opposition to any measure to restrict President Donald Trump’s war powers concerning action against Iran:
In an interview with Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Gardner called on his fellow senators to consider how less likely a terrorist would want to attack a country that appears united rather than a divided one.
“I think every senator taking this vote needs to ask a simple question: wilt a terrorist be more likely to strike the United States if they believe we are weak and divided, or will they be less likely to strike the United States if they believe we are strong and united?” advised Gardner. “Today’s resolution will make the United States appear weak and divided should it succeed. That is not a recipe for defending the American people from terrorism.” [Pols emphasis]
He later warned, “Any sign that the United States is weak, any sign that the Congress is divided or trying to fight his ability to take on the terrorists will ultimately lead to greater attacks and vulnerability when it comes to the United States.”
Now, if you’re reading this with no knowledge about Sen. Cory Gardner’s record, you might think that this is how Gardner has consistently felt about the need for “unity” in support of the nation’s vital foreign policy interests: that “politics ends at the water’s edge.” Gardner similarly voted against reeling in American support for the bloody civil war in Yemen through aid to proxy combatant Saudi Arabia, saying “any move to cut off this assistance without a national security rationale will only serve to embolden our enemies.”
But as it turns out, that’s just what Gardner says when a Republican is President:
That’s the very same Cory Gardner, showing the world how “strong and united” the United States was in 2013–after an attack by Syrian government forces using nerve gas-tipped ballistic missiles against civilians near Damascus killed upwards of a thousand people. Gardner claimed that military action in response to this chemical weapons attack “without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.” This came after President Barack Obama told the Syrian government a year prior that use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” obliging an American military response. Ultimately, despite Gardner’s (and the GOP-controlled Congress’) very public display of disunity a deal was brokered that resulted in the removal of most of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
This is far from the only example of Gardner taking a polar-opposite approach to similar actions taken by the two administrations he has served under in Congress. Gardner condemned and voted against President Obama taking military action in Libya in 2011, and Gardner’s helpless sycophancy in response to Trump’s misadventures in diplomacy with North Korea are by this point legendary–and credibility-shredding in contrast to what Gardner said about Obama’s handling of the same issue.
Nobody made Gardner do any of this. Hypocrisy of this magnitude can’t be ignored.