Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I support authorizing the President to use military force in Syria (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you suggesting the cw came from rebels? (7+ / 0-)

    or are you suggesting something else, perhaps that the cw was released by underlings in the military?

    The August 30 Unclassified US Intelligence Assessment includes fairly definitive proof that the cw fired from Assad's military and cw personnel into rebel held territory. If the classified assessment doesn't make those claims even more definite, lawmakers would be making lots of noise about false claims. I haven't heard that.... have you?

    “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

    by SoCalSal on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm suggesting that the evidence revealed (7+ / 0-)

      makes it more likely that this was done by an underling than ordered by central command.  With inspectors having arrived in the country a day or two before, it doesn't make sense for the government to have waited till the inspectors arrived and then ordered an attack.

      I would prefer that those responsible be indicted for war crimes, than having the U.S. get military involved in a civil war where there is no good side.

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A bad apple? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        seanwright, Hey338Too

        Like the bad apples that got the blame for US government abuses in Iraq?

        Inconsistancy is not your friend.

      •  Doesn't the evidence indicate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that someone fairly high up on the line of authority would have to order the strikes? Here I'm thinking of all the organizing that was observed done in the day or so leading up to the strikes, the transport, etc., including rockets and gas masks. All that activity could be difficult to hide from authorities.

        “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

        by SoCalSal on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To me that's just hairsplitting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        As far as I'm concerned if you can prove it was done by Assad's forces, it's perfectly proper to impute it to Assad.

        `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

        by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:53:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  People who actually attended the briefings (18+ / 0-)

      sound far less certain than you do.

      Here's what Senator Tom Harkin had to say:

      "I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered.  I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial."
      "The coming debate in Congress will hopefully shine the light on outstanding questions -- as will the results of the U.N. inspection team.  We must wait for these results before any action is taken.  What I hear from Iowans is that the Middle East has a complex history and the conflicts there will not be solved by U.S. military action alone.  We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications."

      Alan Grayson says that the intelligence report doesn't even try to directly implicate Assad, accusing only "regime officials" of being "witting of" an attack (NSA redux?):

      Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., said he found the language of the intelligence report awkward. The report said "regime officials" — not Assad — "were witting of" a chemical attack. "One could reasonably ask the question, 'What did Assad know, and when did he know it?' And if you ask that question, you'll be met with a stony silence," Grayson said on MSNBC. "We could have a situation here where there was literally a loose cannon who decided to undertake this."
      •  Thank you. I asked the question, you answered. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not very sure of anything when it comes to the admin's proposal to strike Assad. If I had to vote on it today, I'd vote no.

        All I'm doing here is testing hypotheses.

        “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

        by SoCalSal on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:02:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What restrictions are there on what our (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, Shotput8, Johnny Q

      representatives can say after they have been "read in" to these classified briefings?  Could they even tell us were the classified info was troubling?

      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

      by StrayCat on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:01:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Wood, StrayCat

        If I were a Congressperson, I might simply refuse to attend classified briefings on matters like this one.

        The argument would be: I cannot justify a vote to approve (or fail to approve) a war based on any information available to me but not my constituents.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. Ask yourself, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          why is it secret from us?

          You raise an absolutely great point.

          •  Um, maybe because making it public... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...would reveal sources and/or methods.

            No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

            by newinfluence on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:41:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I respect you for responding as you did. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              In this era in which we have had hearings in Congress and investigations by the GAO about corruption on the part of U.S. contractors and occupied government officials, the likelihood is strong that persons we have inside governments like Syria's are acting on behalf of the military industrial complex, not on behalf of the American people.

              The fact that Syria has chemical weapons and that we have done nothing to prevent or to destroy that capability tells us that whatever sources we have in Syria are only there to describe what's going on, not to prevent the catastrophe that is erupting as a result of the infusion of weapons, missiles, explosives, and toxins into an already volatile social crisis.

        •  I think I probably wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I think there are somethings that are justifiably not a matter of public record. I don't think that refusing to hear that information would make one a better public servant.

          `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

          by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:27:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The caucus response to this would be simple... (0+ / 0-)

          ... "Great!  You are responsible for organizing the caucus breakfasts every Thursday, and enjoy those federal building naming committees you're on."

          If you were a Congressperson you'd swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  Your stance would forever keep you on the back bench, influencing little in the way of public policy and even less of what matters to your constituents.

          Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

          by Hey338Too on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 04:55:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site