What happened, Ed? Just one month ago, citing a variety of concerns, Schultz declared [video] that there should be "no military intervention at all" in Iraq.
Suddenly, it seems, Schultz has gone superhawk. On his MSNBC show this evening, just hours before President Obama lays out his anti-ISIS plan, Schultz said that we should not rule out boots on the ground, and should not outsource the fighting to other countries.
Speaking on August 7th, Schultz, arguing against military action, said: "what's our intel on the ground? Who we going to be hitting? How do we know we're signing up with the right people? And one thing's going to lead to another. So I say no military intervention at all."
ISIS was already slaughtering innocents by the thousands in August. Was it the beheadings of American innocents that changed his mind, or is Schultz simply getting on board with President Obama, now that the Commander-in-Chief has apparently made the decision to go to war?ED SCHULTZ: President Obama tonight is going to go to the American people and is going to llay out what? How can we say there's not going to be any boots on the ground? I mean if ISIS is ISIS and they are as capable as everybody says they are, if they can hit America, if they have that capability, why in the world would we outsource our security to Syrian moderates or the Kurds or Iraqi forces that we really don't know will stand up. Why won't we take care of that job ourselves if ISIS is the threat everybody says they are? So what we're going to do is that we're going to have more intensified airstrikes we going to arm the Syrian moderates and arm the Iraqis and say you guys got to go get the bad guys. I don't know if I like that. What I do like is if the President comes out tonight and says all options are on the table. We're not putting boots on the ground right now. We're going to try to get the job done this way. This is what I believe we can do, but to tell the American people no boots on the ground, that's a fool's errand. We don't know where this is going to go if ISIS is as the threat as everyone says they are. If this is a terrorist organization that wants to take down America, why would we outsource it, number one, and number two, why would we put limitations on our security?
