UPDATE: Land says no flip-flop on military strikes in Syria

UPDATE: The Land campaign has responded to this blog post, denying that the candidate's positions on Syria in 2013 vs. today represent a flip-flop. Heather Swift, Land campaign spokeswoman, said:  ISIS is a terrorist organization that is killing Americans and is a grave threat to the region. Supporting attacks to destroy ISIS is far different from

 military intervention in a civil war. Terri still does

 not support US intervention (in) Syria's civil war

 and does not support putting additional combat boots

 on the ground in the region.

When I asked if Land supported the bipartisan congressional

 action to fund Syrian rebels, I received no response. 

 

 

Largely overlooked in the Senate race pitting Republican Terri Lynn Land against Democratic Rep. Gary Peters is the apparent flip-flop by Land on the issue of military intervention in Syria.

Many congressional Republicans who shied away from -- or outright blasted -- President Obama's plans of a year ago to hit Syria with missile strikes have suddenly become gung-ho on intervening in a big way. Of course, Obama's 2013 plan represented retaliation for the Assad regime's ugly chemical weapons attack, while the current impetus is the ISIS terror group's beheading of two Americans. 

Another obvious factor: the polls that were so soundly against military strikes in 2013 are now strongly in favor of what amounts to a new war.

In Land's case, her words from almost exactly one year ago contradict what she said last week. (And it's still unclear if she would vote for U.S. funds for the Syrian rebels.)

Here are the key elements of her two statements:

Sept. 5, 2013

President Obama has not made a compelling case to justify military intervention in the Syrian civil war, or to put the lives of our military men and women at risk.  I want to be very clear - if I were in the Senate today, I would vote ‘No’ on a resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.
... No one has explained how intervention in Syria is vital to America’s national security interests. If this case cannot be made, the American people would clearly be better served by a President, and a Congress, focused on improving our economy here at home.

Sept. 10, 2014 

Tonight, President Obama is going to address the American people about the threat of the terrorist organization ISIS. The problem is that the President has known about this lethal threat for at least a year and is just tonight announcing a strategy. The president’s failed foreign policy and lack of leadership has allowed the influence of ISIS and other extremists to grow. We have now had two American journalists murdered by ISIS. Thousands of innocent civilians including Christians and other ethnic minorities have been killed or displaced.

The obvious problem here is that Land says the president failed to address the ISIS threat that existed more than a year ago, but one year ago she said there were no U.S. interests at stake in Syria and Obama would be better served to focus on the U.S. economy.

It sounds like Land has some explaining to do.