Skip to main content

President Obama decided to give Congress
 a say about whether this will happen.
President Obama reiterated the administration's views Saturday that the Syrian government of Bashir al-Assad has engaged in chemical warfare, must be held accountable for it and that the United States is prepared to strike militarily in that regard. But in an unexpected move, he said that Congress should debate the matter and vote on it, something both Republicans and 60 Democrats, including some of the most progressive in Congress, have been vigorously seeking this past week.

"Some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment," the president said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are united as one nation."

Obama’s remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders on Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike on Syria, officials said.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were among the administration officials expected to speak to key members of Congress on Saturday afternoon, amid signs that the White House is close to ordering an attack on Syria to admonish it for its alleged use of chemical weapons last week.

“We’re continuing to weigh our options,” a senior U.S. official said. “We’re confident in our analysis that the United States and our allies can handle any contingencies that come as a result of military action should it be chosen by the president.”

The president made clear, as Secretary of State John Kerry has twice done in the past week, that the administration believes action must be taken against Syria. But what seemed to be the run-up to an imminent attack is now put off for more than a week. Congress is not slated to return to Washington until Sept. 9.

Obama also carefully made a point of saying that he believes he has the authority to take action without a vote of Congress.

Meanwhile, the team of U.N. inspectors who were sent to Syria to investigate the impact of what almost everyone agrees was a massive and lethal chemical attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21 has returned to The Netherlands. The team's job was not to determine who launched the attack.

"It needs time to be able to analyze the information and the samples," U.N. spokesman Martin] Nesirky said. He noted that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said there is no alternative to a political solution to the crisis in Syria. "A military solution is not an option," he said.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (135+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JoanMar, angry marmot, navajo, War on Error, Hey338Too, claytonben, briefer, bobswern, anodnhajo, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, wu ming, Lawrence, akmk, Ray Pensador, Susan from 29, remembrance, carlos the jackal, InAntalya, edwardssl, Claudius Bombarnac, LinSea, collardgreens, chuckgintn, Pam from Calif, Marjmar, wdrath, twigg, pileta, politik, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, bbctooman, CoyoteMarti, Mr Robert, Blu Gal in DE, chuckvw, kharma, Ender, NYFM, 3goldens, Mind That, 4kedtongue, CwV, leonard145b, suejazz, yerioy, DRo, jan4insight, flatford39, We Won, Sybil Liberty, annieli, zestyann, preskin, k9disc, AntonBursch, i dunno, roberb7, a2nite, MikeCA, spritegeezer, Joieau, CenPhx, sunbro, Zinman, VL Baker, Eric Nelson, acnetj, Lorinda Pike, KayCeSF, kalmoth, mchestnutjr, psyched, mikidee, northerntier, zipn, enhydra lutris, willyr, middleagedhousewife, misterwade, Hohenzollern, joanbrooker, cotterperson, chicagobleu, sja, highacidity, RuralLiberal, David54, VPofKarma, Aunt Pat, 88kathy, Wildthumb, BachFan, eeff, Sydserious, glitterscale, Supavash, thomask, SoCalSal, rbird, S F Hippie, CrissieP, WisVoter, NonnyO, Glen The Plumber, gmats, smileycreek, Boris49, klompendanser, Mistral Wind, JVolvo, Via Chicago, Milly Watt, The Marti, Linda1961, julesrules39, Karl Rover, rubyr, belinda ridgewood, blueoasis, Yasuragi, smoothnmellow, Teiresias70, PrahaPartizan, El Mito, Quantumlogic, exNYinTX, 3rock, sdf, Denise Oliver Velez, dharmasyd, Nulwee, HCKAD, LanceBoyle, Sophie Amrain, Dragon5616

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:24:58 AM PDT

  •  The right choice is to (14+ / 0-)

    give up and not to go to a war based on lies.   He has not made that call yet.   He still will advocate for a war based on lies in the congress.

      •  He has not provided any evidence that (7+ / 0-)

        Assad used the chemical weapons.   Only pompous statements.   He should answer the question that Putin asked.

        The lies are coming from the jihadist rebels who claim that Assad used weapons.  I find it much more likely that they did.   They are the only ones who had the motive.

        •  "Only pompous statements", huh? (33+ / 0-)

          That's a pretty "interesting" statement about a President who just decided to put this up for a vote by Congress, to say the least....

          Or are you saying that our democratic government is at the beck and call of autocratic Putin?

          I see you dodged the question about providing proof that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are lying.

          Why is that?

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:45:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama said that the chemical weapons in Syria (9+ / 0-)

            are a threat to us.   To the US citizens.   Same as what Bush had said about the chemical weapons in Iraq.

            Can you please explain how that is a true statement?  Please provide some evidence.

            •  Chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating (14+ / 0-)

              state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet.

              To the US citizens.
              Interesting sentence structure there.

              And yes, they are a danger to U.S. citizens throughout the world.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:58:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No they are not a threat to US citizens (7+ / 0-)

                thats ridiculous.   By the same token, the nuclear weapons of Russia are a threat also.  Should we attack Russia?

                •  Are you having trouble reading what my comments (17+ / 0-)

                  actually say or are you being purposefully obstinate?

                  Please re-read:

                  Chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet.
                  Russia is not a failing/disintegrating state.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  your argument is beyond ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Treetrunk, Boris49, InAntalya

                    You argue that chemical weapons are a danger in Syria because the Syrian State is failing/disintegrating and the solution is to bomb the Syrian state?

                    Think about it.

                    •  Actually, I think you need to think (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      El Mito, Lawrence

                      whether than get carried away by emotions.  The person actually has a point that I had not considered -- an unstable country with chemical weapons.  Weapons that can end up in the hands of every terrorist group with an itching to create holy jihad against Americans.  

                      Not that I'm in favor of military action, but at least I do understand the logic here as to why it would be considered.  This is too serious of a deal to be emoting all over the place.  I think that everyone should understand what is at stake and why.

                      Then a reasoned debate can occur.  I don't think you are there yet.

                  •  That's the same neocon playbook (9+ / 0-)

                    Those weapons don't threaten the United States and to claim that because some idiot American might wander into Syria that we have the right to go war with Syria to protect Americans is crazy.

                    This makes me as angry as anything.  It's the utter absurdity of the GWOT.   There is someone somewhere who might get his hand on a weapon someday and some American somewhere someday might run across this fellow THEREFORE we have the right to visit carnage on some other people just because we can.  

                    You might as well say that beer is a security threat to the United States because an American might get hit by a drunk driver on a foreign vacation.

                    •  That is not the only way those things (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lawrence

                      can be a threat to Americans.  There are Americans living abroad.  There are American interests abroad.  There can be breeches of security here that would allow such weapons in this country.  The scenarios are many.   It's not about being hawkish, either.  It's about understanding what can really happen.  

                  •  Lawrence, how did Syria become this (0+ / 0-)

                    "failing/disintegrating state"???

                    US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels

                    The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says the US announcement is one that the Syrian opposition has been pushing and praying for for months.

                    It seems clear that President Obama has finally been persuaded, as Britain and France have argued, that the battlefield cannot be allowed to tilt strongly in the regime's favour, as is currently happening, he adds.

                    -cut-

                    A spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the BBC that he remained against "any further militarisation" of the conflict in Syria, saying the people there need peace not more weapons.

                    We've been giving aide and comfort the traitors in Syria for years.  Just like we fomented "revolution" in Iran 60 yrs ago. Just like we've been doing so for the last 10 yrs in places like Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

                    If we kept our dirty little militaristic paws at home, these countries couldn't become "failing" states.

                    What's clear, the Assad government is winning the war we started with him when we funded, armed and trained the mercenaries in his country.

                    What's also clear, these US backed "insurgents" are the ones committing these crimes against humanity and attempting to destabilize the country.

                    Syrian Insurgents Force Prisoner to Become a Suicide Bomber

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:19:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry dude, but the whole theory that the Arab (0+ / 0-)

                      Spring is caused by the U.S. is pretty silly and, tbh., reeks of a type of supremacism that borders on racism to me because it robs Arabs of their agency.

                      The fact is that the internet and the increasing interconnectedness of the world has had a profound effect on the world, and the Arab Spring is a result of that.

                      That's why the Arab Spring has been ideologically blind, dethroning mostly pro-western dictators, but also hitting former Soviet Bloc client dictators.

                      Syria became this failed state because Assad decided to cling to power and shut down the Arab Spring with the utmost of brutality when it arrived in Syria.

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:45:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What part of me being a woman don't you accept? (0+ / 0-)

                        Our M.O. is the same world over.  The thing is we have proof of Western intervention in the most bizarre pot stirring I've ever seen.

                        British special forces caught dressed as Arab 'terrorists'

                        You may wish to claim it's all some grass roots movement AGAINST SYRIA, I don't buy into the propaganda presented by our media.

                        Thousands rally all over Syria in support of Bashar Al-Assad.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:18:51 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oops, sorry about that. (0+ / 0-)

                          I understand that you don't accept it and would rather see some big, U.S.-driven conspiracy.

                          You shouldn't trust the MSM and should filter it but you shouldn't trust non-msm news sources either.  Many non-MSM "news" sources have their own agenda and are even less objective than the MSM and have even worse journalistic standards.

                          And you really should try to understand the Arab Spring as a whole in order to understand how it played out in Syria and why it went so bad there.  

                          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                          by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:15:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for the apology, I am a woman....;) (0+ / 0-)

                            I really don't want to believe anything but the facts, honest.

                            We have no right to go after any sovereign nation that has done nothing to us.

                            It went bad there because we funded, trained and armed the rebels.

                            What would our government do if the Chinese funded, trained and supported any of the militia groups the SPLC rants on about???

                            We created the mess, it's not much more clear than that.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I'll try and do my best to remember that. (0+ / 0-)

                            I really don't understand how you come to the conclusion that "we created the mess, it's not much more clear than that."

                            The mess in Syria has really deep roots that go all the way back to the Roman Empire and the later Arab Empires.  There are all kinds of factors at play there and, tbh., we are a far more minor player there than you seem to realize.

                            As for going after a "sovereign" nation...

                            Syria isn't really a sovereign nation anymore, but more like a nation with multiple zones that are at war with each other.  The three main zones are:

                            The zone in the west and southwest that is controlled by the regime.

                            The zone in the east and north that is controlled by Sunni Arab rebels of all kinds of different stripes, from moderate to extreme.

                            The zone in the northeast and some enclaves in the north that are controlled by the Kurdish PYD.

                            I'm also not sure that the whole concept of sovereignty is necessarily a good one when governments start killing by using genocidal weapons like Sarin Gas.  The whole concept of sovereignty dates back to aristocrats using the concept to stake their claims to conquered territories, no matter what the inhabitants of those territories actually wanted, much like the autocrat Assad is attempting to do.

                            There are no easy answers in Syria, as I attempted to explain in a detailed comment yesterday:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 10:19:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  So, it's better that the rebels manage the (4+ / 0-)

                chemical weapons?

                I would think a stable government would be better safe keepers. So why are the Saudis pushing so hard to topple Syria?

                Another view, can I post this {mintpress}? And Wall Street journal had article on Saudis too.
                How do we know there is not more to the story that we are given?

                http://www.mintpressnews.com/...

                •  That's a valid point. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too, SoCalSal

                  But anyone who thinks that Assad will manage to re-establish a stable state with such a large percentage of the population being against him just hasn't been paying attention to Syria.

                  Sunni Saudi Arabia is pushing to damage their Shia rival Iran.  

                  That mintpress(who the fuck are they anyway?) article has lots of holes.

                  I only see two options for securing the chemical and biological weapons:

                  a.  Put enough pressure on Assad to come to the negotiating table and give up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

                  b.  Insert troops into Syria, secure, extract, and destroy the chemical and biological weapons and weapons facilities.

                  It seems to me like the Obama Administration is going for option a.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:39:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sometimes I just google subjects (0+ / 0-)

                    and read alternative sites, especially as I have been very disappointed in the lack of debate in MSM. I also like reading foreign press.

                    What gives us the right to intervene in a civil war? Ever?

                    •  Potential genocide, use of wmd's, and massive (5+ / 0-)

                      war crimes give us the right to do so.  

                      In fact, international law stipulates that we should do so.

                      That being said, I'm not sure that a strike is the right course of action.  I am, however, tired of quite a few people casually brushing aside the use of chemical weapons while they make their case against some kind of reaction to that use.

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I watched cspan House of Commons (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Laconic Lib, gerrilea

                        debate on Syria.

                        Several people argued that no one did anything when Israel used white phosphorous.

                        I am tired of hypocrisy, too.

                        No one ever speaks out against Saudi Arabian on their human rights abuses, or any other of our "friends".

                        So this leads me to conclude, there is a larger agenda. imo

                      •  How so? Where does it state that USA must act? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Laconic Lib, gerrilea, driftwood
                        In fact, international law stipulates that we should do so.
                        No sarcasm or attack here (I'm giving that up for Rosh Hashanah) - what law forces our hand here?

                        As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

                        by JVolvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:51:59 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  No, that doesn't give US the right to intervene. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        driftwood

                        Only the U.N. can authorize launching an act of war on a sovereign country.

                      •  Not accurate. The founding principles of the UN (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        driftwood

                        charter make clear if we act without authority, we are committing crimes against world peace.

                        The UN has not authorized any such attacks, period.

                        Syria resolution dies at U.N., and British lawmakers balk

                        WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's move to punish Syria's government for allegedly using chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week appeared to suffer a setback Wednesday when the U.S. failed to get United Nations approval for use of force and British support was thrown into question.
                        It's really important we keep to the facts here.

                        CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:27:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  NONSENSE!!! (0+ / 0-)

                          The last time the UN stopped aggression was 1950 -- the Korean War. Since the UN is completely incapable of doing anything, your position essentially is a license for every tyrant to commit every kind of mass atrocity thinkable and unthinkable. The League of Nations was just as bad when it failed to stop Mussolini and Hitler.

                          •  The rule of law IS NOT NONSENSE. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            driftwood

                            The biggest threat to world peace is and has been the United States.  We've killed millions since the end of WWII.

                            The treaty our Congress ratified IS part of the Supreme Law of this Land.  WE agreed that world peace was to be negotiated in a civilized manner.   Shooting missiles and dropping bombs IS NOT PEACEFUL NOR CIVILIZED.

                            If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.

                            If "we go it alone" then our government becomes like any other rogue nation we've demonized, threatened and attacked.

                            If the world says "NO", then we are bound by law not to do anything.  We are not the world.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:58:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll take stopping genocide over the rule of law (0+ / 0-)

                            The world has failed at that way too many times.

                          •  And you are sadly naive (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lawrence
                            If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.
                            Those of us who remember the six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis and how the world turned its back disagree.

                            Not to mention the millions of Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Empire earlier in the 20th century.

                            Or the tens of millions murdered by Stalin.

                            Or the tens of millions of Chinese murdered by the Japanese during World War II.

                            Or the hundreds of thousands who died as the result of the partition of India.

                            And I'm only up to 1947. The list of mass murders in the six figure range since is even longer. The entire world did not agree to stop it.

                          •  You have got to be kidding me? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            driftwood

                            And I mean: you've got to fucking kidding me!

                            You're trying to equate the crimes perpetrated in Syria to the Holocust?  Who you trying to zoom here?  Assad IS NOT HITLER!  Is he invading other countries? Is he attacking and annexing territories?  Has he made his intentions clear that he wants to install his own race as the masters of the planet????

                            I call bullshit!

                            We Americans and our foreign policy has resulted in over 8 million humans being exterminated throughout the world SINCE WWII.

                            There is no morality in what we do.  Our foreign policy is dictated to us by the neocons that have taken control of our government.  

                            The Iranian Coup led by the CIA resulted in a million Iranians being exterminated.  Why??? To protect British Petroleum.

                            In Guatemala 100,000 die to protect Rockefeller's United Fruit Company.

                            Then there's Laos, Cambodia, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, The Congo, Ecuador, Haiti and the list goes on and on!

                            Millions dead because of us!  Over a million Iraqi's dead from the embargo in the '90's!  

                            Then we have 62 million the Chinese killed since WWII.

                            I'm not the one being naive here. Or the one claiming that working together as one "human" race can only be accomplished by the military might of the fucking United States!

                            You've just attempted to justify our Corporate Imperialism and hid it with moral platitudes!

                            Disgusting.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:06:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm NOT kidding. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your comment,

                            If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.
                            is such total BS that I can only assume that you are ok with all the abuses that you and I have described. The fact is that the entire world will NEVER agree, and the UN is in fact set up to prevent anything from ever being done.

                            Your history is also bogus. Neocons are a recent phenomenon; most of the examples you gave are long before the word even existed. And the US had nothing to do with the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, the Japanese occupiers in China, with Mao, with Sri Lanka, or with many other examples you give.

                            WAKE UP!!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!! We finally have a President who wants to intervene against this kind of horror and you are pulling the isolationist crapola of the 1930s.

                          •  This isn't true. (0+ / 0-)

                            The last time was 2011, in Libya.

                            You are correct that the UN security council kind of is a joke nowadays, because two autocratic nations can block anything if they want.

                            Hell, the Assad Regime could wipe out a whole city of 100k people in just one day and just 1 of these autocratic countries could still block it.  

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  How is he doing this? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo
                    a.  Put enough pressure on Assad to come to the negotiating table and give up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
                    Obama has painted himself into a bit of a corner. There doesn't seem to be much chance that Congress will approve military action in this situation yet Obama is asking them for approval.

                    As far as I can tell, Obama is now left with two viable options, barring some Syrian military attack on another nation. The first is to fail to act and use the excuse that Congress didn't approve. The second is to, after having asked for the consent of Congress and after being denied, act anyway. The first defangs any "red line" with the threat of military action talk from Obama for the remainder of his term. The second shows him as an indecisive leader (did he, did he not, think Congress should be consulted?; was he just looking for political cover?) lacking confidence to act - a weakness psychopathic dictator thugs understand intuitively.

                    Given these two options, Assad will (likely, rightfully) conclude that the best thing (politically) for Obama to do is let Congress reject his request and let the next big news event bury the story so the public forgets about it.

                    Obama got himself in this box with his "red line" talk trying to be tough from the bully pulpit, he made a mistake there.

                    I really don't see how this puts more pressure on Assad, rather it seems to do just the opposite.

                    Hopefully the final result is that we don't attack (esp. since a "no boots on ground" attack is unlikely to achieve the goal) and Assad decides that it's best to negotiate for some other reason. But think the actions from the Administration make this less, rather than more, likely. Historians will decide in the end.

                    •  The Assad Regime already has been negatively (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      julesrules39

                      impacted, merely preparing for strikes.

                      They have had to scramble all kinds of assets and the wealthy, Assad-loyal citizens have been fleeing the country to avoid air strikes.

                      The pressure already is on and the Assad regime is far from being in a stable position.

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:05:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  There's strong bipartisan support for this war. (0+ / 0-)

                      The process of seeking Congressional approval can only delay - not stop - the impending attack. When put to a vote, it will pass with a solid bipartisan majority - my guess is something like 75-24 in the Senate & 290-130 in the House.

                      All the "serious" Democrats are on board, including Pelosi. The Republicans will heap scorn on Obama for the "limited" nature of the attacks & for not intervening sooner & doing regime-change. But they want this war. Really, this is an ideal situation for the Republicans. They're getting the policy they want - militarism in the Middle East, unilateralism, contempt for the U.N. & international law - but the Democrats get to own it when it goes bad (as it surely will). Furthermore, this creates a huge wedge between the Democratic policy elite & the Democratic base.

                      But at least this buys us some time. Perhaps Obama will realize the degree to which he's gone out on a limb on this. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail within the administration. Or perhaps enough world leaders will speak out about the folly of this adventure that Obama would change his mind. But I'm just dreaming now - the decision to go to war has already been made. Unilaterally.

                      •  Rand Paul (0+ / 0-)

                        can be counted on to oppose it.

                        Which itself is a good argument in its favor.

                        •  Maybe we'll get a "List of intellectuals opposing (0+ / 0-)

                          intervention: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.."  diary?  hehe

                        •  Rand Paul is right on this one. (0+ / 0-)

                          I never waste an opportunity to point out the fallacy of Randism, & I couldn't see myself ever voting for Rand Paul, but I'm perfectly willing to team up with him & the teabaggers on this one, if we can put a stop to this lurch toward war in Syria. It's a long shot, but at this point it's the only shot we have. To enter the war in Syria would be supreme folly; at least Rand Paul has the courage of his convictions to stand up & fight against it.

              •  true (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                highacidity

                but proposed military actions are not designed to eliminate those weapons or prevent their use. Unless we are being lied to about the "limited" scope of the mission. Air strikes will do nothing to limit the use of those weapons, and may even spur their use. Or lead them into the hands of international evil doers.  .... Off the point of your asking for evidence of lies

                Power to the Peaceful!

                by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:35:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Try This Counter Argument On Then (0+ / 0-)

                If chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet, then the SMART MOVE would be to make sure that state DOES NOT FAIL.  Under that logic, we should be supporting Assad, to make sure the weapons don't fall into the wrong hands.  

                Of the two contending forces in Syria, Assad and anti-Assad, only one has really threatened the US at all, and that force is not the Assad regime.  Only the anti-Assad forces and their affiliates have threatened and in the reasonably close past actually attacked (multiple times if one counts the failed efforts) the US or its interests.  Therefore, attacking Syria to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the forces which are more likely to attack the US works against the interests of the US.

                Why do you hate America?

                "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

                by PrahaPartizan on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:17:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Increased use of chemical weapons (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity, VPofKarma

              Will lead to increased research and development of new chemical weapons.  Chemical (and biological) weapons have the potential to be an equalizer that would allow a smaller state to inflict more equal damage upon a state such as the US with superior conventional weaponry.  Beating down use of non-conventional weapons is partly about preserving American military superiority.

          •  What the difference if he not lying? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk, JVolvo

            So what if he's not lying?
            Getting involved in Syria is a fools errand.

            Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

            by olo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That is preposterous (6+ / 0-)

          Did you even read te report?  No. Of course not

        •  Ol' ex-KGB leader Putin is your hero now, huh? (14+ / 0-)

          He never lied about his political enemies, huh?

          He never created a whole class of political prisoners who filled Soviet and Russian jails because they were dissidents?

          Again, shit.

          "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

          by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And you trust anything coming out of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ

          Putin's mouth?  That's the best you can do?  Please.

          •  So, why shouldn't we believe him again? (0+ / 0-)

            What credible evidence can you present that he's lying to us about these facts.

            Didn't they just accept one of our political refugees from torture and death, ie Snowden?

            I believe him over anything our government can claim.  And it boils down to credibility here.  Our government lied us into perpetual war.  They lied to us about WMD's, lied about the NSA, lied about the torture, they've lied, lied and lied.

            And we have proof of their lies.  

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:33:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  He said the weapons were a threat to us and (14+ / 0-)

        that is a lie.  That's the very same kind of bullshit we got from Dubya Rummie, and Cheney.  He said it was about our national interest.  Yeah, right, a civil war on the other side of the earth.  

        •  They are a threat to us whether we go or not. (6+ / 0-)

          Anyone, Assad or the rebels could concievably get them, or their components, bring the components here, mix them contain them and trigger them in the middle of the next Boston Marathon scenario.  The sticky part is, will our intervention cause this?? or deter it?  Nobody, not the President or the military or Congress knows for certain.

          Dear budget cutting GOP'ers: Public transit is my “car.” And frankly, I’d like it back.

          by imfunnytoo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:53:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction. (15+ / 0-)

          In Syria, there very clearly are.

          Weapons of mass destruction in a failing/destabilizing state are a threat to virtually everyone on the planet.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Particularly to Greenland (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk, Fixed Point Theorem

            There could be a strong wind from the south.

            •  Particularly dangerous to neighboring countries, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              julesrules39, Lawrence

              where distribution of chemical weapons could cause strife, wars, global economic instability, significant loss of life. That could most certainly have negative effect on Americans and American allies.  

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

              by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We need to make distinctions (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                If the weapons threaten the neighbors, the neighbors have the right of self-defense to do something about it.  

                But an attack on Israel or Turkey does not threaten ME.  Now, if they were attacked, they might invoke an alliance and we might then have a reason to participate but we are not their poodles.  They don't have the right to have the United States defend them without doing a damn thing.  If they want that kind of commitment, then they need to petition for statehood.  

                •  Oh right, because it's all about YOU. YOU!!! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  julesrules39, Lawrence

                  That explains everything.

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

                  by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:25:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Since when was this personal? (0+ / 0-)

                    Our government is going to use our military to attack another nation that has NOT attacked us, cannot attack us and will not attack us!

                    Despite the fact we've been attacking them through the mercenaries we've paid, armed and trained to go into Syria.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:37:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  How is a fleet of drones not WMD's? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib

            I wish we would avoid the term.

            And who gave us the right to be final arbiter of WMD ownership?  God?

          •  Does one honestly believe the fabrications on WMDs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HCKAD

            . . . in the lead-up to the Iraq debacle were the ONLY thing about that war that was problematic? Never mind that the Iraq invasion lit the fuse to the powder-keg of sectarian war that is in the process of consuming the entire region. Never mind that it was born of the hubris & vainglory of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. Never mind the 100,000+ deaths, the 2 million refugees, the demise of thousand-year-old religious communities, the stain of torture & war crimes, the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed away.

            Weapons of mass destruction in a failing/destabilizing state are a threat to virtually everyone on the planet.
            So logically, the U.S. should precipitate the failure of such state? Foment more chaos? Pour gasoline on the flames of war? Enter that war on the side of jihadis so as to prevent WMDs from falling into their hands? Sorry, I can't see the logic of this.
        •  What POTUS said: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanbrooker, edwardssl
          This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
          Has the ring of truth to me.

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

          by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:16:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Right. There was no chemical attack (33+ / 0-)

      killing over 1200 people, which included over 400 children, perpetrated by Assad.

      This was all staged, just like the moon landing.

      (facepalm)

      •  I don't think anyone is disputing that there was (21+ / 0-)

        a chemical attack.

        But we don't know who perpetrated it.

        Let's get Rumsfeldian and call it a known unknown.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:38:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. Let's get Hagelian (13+ / 0-)

          and say we know who did it.  Kerry and Obama seem pretty sure they know.  I believe they do.

        •  Well (9+ / 0-)

          435 people will debate that, among other questions.  We elected them; they are our proxies.  Not perfect, but it's how our system works.  

          •  "not perfect" is being quite generous. (0+ / 0-)

            The majority of the House consists of clowns, buffoons, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and CT nuts.  And they don't proportionally represent the people, since their districts have been gerrymandered up the wazoo, to the extent that Dems get over a million more votes, yet 40 fewer seats.

            The Senate also has its share of racists, misogynists, homophobes, and CT nuts (exhibit A: Ted Cruz; exhibit B: Stand with Rand Paul).  And of course, the Senate doesn't have proportional representation by its very design.

            Yeah, it's "how our system works", but I don't buy the idea that Congress necessarily are "our proxies" more than the president him/herself is.

        •  Rumsfeldian..... lmbo (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VPofKarma

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:47:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So Obama=Rumsfeld? (8+ / 0-)

            I feel better now about calling a cohort of nuts here the "loony left."

            THIS is why a certain portion of left-of-center people in this country never can make and maintain allies to get anything done.

            You have NO credibility.

            Sorry, Barack Obama has more cred than your group ever will. And you don't effect policy, and over time only a few loons will listen to you.

            God, am I proud to call myself a Democrat, and not a "progressive."

            Congratulations. You've given "progressive" a shitty reputation.

            "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

            by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:08:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Duh. I'm a life long liberal and not ashamed to (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Treetrunk, CcVenussPromise, BoiseBlue

              say so.

              I never grasped this Progressive meme.

              Read my byline.

              Quite a stretch in your analysis.

              Peace!!

              It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

              by War on Error on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:18:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would add.... (21+ / 0-)

              ....that some of the commentators here make it much easier for me to understand why the US has the most dysfunctional, disunited, and impotent left in the entire developed world. You can't march forward into the future with a confident step if you keep on shooting your toes off.

              It's just pathetic when you see people who loudly demanded Obama put the entire matter to Congress, since they were stupidly sure he wouldn't dare, now turn around and say it doesn't matter if it goes before Congress because the fix is in anyway. If that's true, why did they want it put before Congress in the first place?

              "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

              by sagesource on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:20:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dude, there are those who nail it, and those who (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mikidee, highacidity, Hey338Too, Lawrence

                really nail it.

                Guess which category ol' Wildthumb puts YOU in?

                "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:26:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And another thing: I read your response to my wife (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Yasuragi

                (hey, a high compliment!) and she said "it's nice to hear something rational from someone on Kos."

                "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:34:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not arguing with this. (0+ / 0-)
                US has the most dysfunctional, disunited, and impotent left in the entire developed world
                But it's not because WE are "loony" or don't buy into this BS about American "exceptionalism". It's not because WE fail to "get with the program" when the president calls us to war.

                Some reasons I can think of . . .

                1) Multiple episodes of repression in the past against socialist & communist movements, which effectively deprived the political left of energy & intellectual heft.

                2) Rightist nationalism always trumps leftist internationalism.

                3) Our sclerotic duopoly of political parties effectively quashes any serious challenges to the status quo.

                4) The power & political muscle of the corporate & business lobbies.

                5) Ever since 1979, the peace movement has been virtually politically untouchable.

                6) Race trumps class. In the U.S. it has always been thus.

                Bottom line: one can be as far to the right as one wants & still be taken seriously within our country's political establishment. But on the left one must mince words & stay between the lines - lines that have been drawn pretty far to the right.

            •  Blatant misread to fuel your outrage. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib, DeadHead

              And what an attack on the DFH/Amateur Left you ripped out there. Been holding that in for a while, I'd speculate.

              And this:

              Congratulations. You've given "progressive" a shitty reputation.
              How Centrist (TM) of you...

              As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

              by JVolvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:00:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Centrist." The new insult, eh? You love (0+ / 0-)

                Vlad too?

                And I was a DFH in the sixties but I wasn't stuck back there and spinning in place.

                If you're a "progressive" I'm glad I'm something else. But I won't let the likes of you define me, Vladdie boy. Obama is _better than you are and better than that KGB tyrant.

                What have you stuck out your precious neck for lately from your laptop?

                "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:20:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Putin? Have I EVER commented on Putin? No. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib

                  Don't know who you think I am or what distorted strawman you are projecting on me now.  I reject it.

                  Just noting your animosity above re dirty "progressives."

                  That comes from Limbaugh/Coulter ReThugs out in meat space, the White House when Rahm was Chief of Staff and, sadly, DLC/Centrists here.

                  So which camp is yours?

                  As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

                  by JVolvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:31:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey, let's start all over, shall we? (0+ / 0-)

                    I thought you were aligned with a guy upthread who commented on Putin approvingly as some sort of source now,
                    forgetting apparently that Putin was ex-KGB and used all of the KGB-style silencing of dissidents in both the Soviet Union and Russia. So I'm punching the reset button.

                    But I can tell you have some ready-made insults of your own at the ready and you're using them, as if you've stored up some of your own "outrage" against the "centrist Democrats" here.

                    I'm still a begrudging admirer of Fidel Castro for his revolution in Cuba so I doubt I'd be part of Harold Ford's group. Have a nice evening.

                    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                    by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:09:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  meh (0+ / 0-)

                      This:

                      How Centrist (TM) of you...
                      pales in comparison to this:
                      So Obama=Rumsfeld?

                      I feel better now about calling a cohort of nuts here the "loony left."

                      THIS is why a certain portion of left-of-center people in this country never can make and maintain allies to get anything done.

                      You have NO credibility.

                      Sorry, Barack Obama has more cred than your group ever will. And you don't effect policy, and over time only a few loons will listen to you.

                      God, am I proud to call myself a Democrat, and not a "progressive."

                      Congratulations. You've given "progressive" a shitty reputation.

                      "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                      by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:08:08 PM PDT

                      But at least your feathers got ruffled.

                      ha ha




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:13:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What're you, my enemy now? This is very new news, (0+ / 0-)

                        and I didn't expect it from you.

                        Ha ha yourself. And buzz off, testa morta.

                        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

                        by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:06:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, everyone is out to get you, because (0+ / 0-)

                          you decided to make an asshole comment. lol.

                          So now you're seeing enemies EVERYWHERE.

                          I just think you're getting all worked up, and it's kinda funny.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:01:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Obama's credibility is GONE. (0+ / 0-)

              He's essentially embraced the foreign policy of George W. Bush. Militarism in the Middle East. Unilateralism. Bullying & arrogance toward other countries. Contempt for the rule of law. I've always maintained that the difference between the Democratic foreign-policy establishment & the neoconservatives that held sway under the previous administration is a matter of degree rather than kind.

              I voted for Obama over Hillary in the primary because he opposed the Iraq war (or at least pretended to). I voted for Obama in '08 & '12 because I judged him to be the best hope for keeping us out of another Middle Eastern war. And damn if he doesn't go & jump in a Middle Eastern war.

              So effectively it doesn't even matter whom we elect. We get militarism abroad; surveillance, authoritarianism & declining standards of living at home. The only choice we have is between center right & hard right.

        •  I also don't KNOW (8+ / 0-)

          we landed on the moon, since I wasn't physically there.

          Sometimes, we an use our common sense.  And that has nothing to do with Rumsfeld.

        •  OMG really? (12+ / 0-)

          Please explain WHO ELSE could have done it?

          The chemicals didnt come by magic carpet.

          This is not something you can cook up in your basement.

          The regime elements in the area were prepared with chemical warfare equipment.

          It was an opposition held area.

          So if it wasnt the regime it was the opposition.  And the opposition launched a chemical attack on its own people with weapons it doesnt posses and informed the regime in time for them to take precautions.  

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:50:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I sometimes have the uneasy feeling... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ksuwildkat, VPofKarma, charliehall2

            ...that people obsessed with "false flag" operations are indulging in an unhealthy degree of projection. In other words, that's what they believe was done because that's what they'd do if they had power.

            "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

            by sagesource on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  movies (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VPofKarma, Lawrence

              make "false flag" look sooooo easy.  In reality they rarely work and take INSANE effort.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:26:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I imagine false flags in war happen (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ksuwildkat

                daily. Lying about who did what, is common place in life, unfortunately.

                So I can only imagine it doubles in war.

                •  less lies (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VPofKarma, Lawrence

                  more fog of war.  Its so hard to determine some times who did what if you are at the ground level.  Your view is so constricted and narrow.  Of course other times the ground view is entirely clear - you see the guy and he is doing something.

                  Up one level it is a bit easier to see the bigger picture.  In this case when we know the point of origin and the point of impact, its pretty easy to determine who did what.

                  But all that is far different than a true false flag operation where you actively work to get people to believe someone else did a bad act that you did.  Its hard and it requires a tight backstory and everyone being 100% on message.  

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:47:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Who cares who the perpetrators are? (0+ / 0-)

            If the countries closest to the problem, and most affected by the possible misuse of chemical weapons, aren't willing to take action against Syria, why is the US making such a big deal out of this.

            Who elected the US the policeman of the world? Who gave the US the authority to act on behalf of the rest of the world?

            Enquiring minds want to know!

            The future is just a concept we use to avoid living today

            by MetalMD on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:33:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Pardon me (19+ / 0-)

          But let us not pretend the evidence is equal

          We have eye witness reports, reporters on the ground, prior info about chemical weapons, and apparently satellite info about the rocket launches that corroborate the eyewitness accounts, phone intercepts and the targets list all supporting the theory that Assad did this.

          On the other hand we have some loose conspiracy theories that either the Israelis (George Galloway) or the Saudis (zerohedge) have some rebels chemical weapons to launch a staged attack.  There is no particulat evidenc supporting either theory. No answers where they got the rockets.

          So, yes at this point at minimum a preponderance of the evidence supports strongly the idea that Assad did this. There virtually none supporting any other possibility.  And if you don't by the CT that Kerry and Obama are making it up, the evidence is overwhelming.

          •  I never said that an outside group attacked (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk, Nailbanger, Laconic Lib, HCKAD

            Yes, the most obvious answer is Assad.

            But excuse me if I don't buy the whole argument hook, line, and sinker. And I'm sorry that I don't believe we should be playing big brother to the world.

            There are other atrocities happening daily by brutal regimes, but we don't threaten war against them because there is no geopolitical reason to do so.

            So please cut the crap and quit acting like this is a humanitarian mission, that we're talking about war because we're outraged about deaths abroad.

            We are not and we never have been.

            And let's not pretend that this won't end in war no matter what. The drumbeat has started and it's all but written in stone.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Will you apologize.... (0+ / 0-)

              ....if it doesn't?

              Some people here were equally sure Obama wouldn't dare to consult Congress. They now have egg all over their faces.

              "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

              by sagesource on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:24:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RuralLiberal, RainyDay, Laconic Lib

                I won't apologize for being anti-war.

                I won't apologize for fearing that the worst will happen.

                I will apologize for a lot of things, but I won't apologize for not believing in the ability of the MIC to do the right thing.

                And I won't apologize for believing that Obama is ready to go to war. He is already making his fucking case, what further proof do you need? Do you think he's acting like someone who doesn't want to go to war right now? If so, what gives you that impression?

                P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:34:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm confused (4+ / 0-)

                  with the attitude that Obama wants to go to war. I feel I listen to most politicians with a critical, and sometimes cynical ear. If you actually listen to what he has said he specifically says he does not desire to go to war. And he is cognizant most of the US citizens do not want more conflict. The dilemma seems to be What is the proper response to war time atrocities? Personally, I do not know. It's hard for me to believe killing anyone in retribution is the answer. But then, what is the answer? Doing nothing seems very wrong.

                  you get what you give

                  by chicagobleu on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Who then, Martians? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lawrence, AaronInSanDiego, Yasuragi

              If it isn't Assad an it isn't the rebels then who?  If it is the rebels (again despite the absolute lack of any evidence) where the hell did the rockets and chemical weapons come from?  

              I know very few progressives advocated for action in Darfur or Rwanda or even Sri Lanka as I did (not our problem, it's only brown people), but fuck yes it is about the weapons and this stupid geopolitical CT nonsense is utterly defeated by one clear fact. President Obama has been absolutely opposed to getting involved and has done only the minimum for years here and ONLY gets interested after chemical weapons are used

              Speaking of cutting the crap, lets stop pretending that this new found rigor for evidence has anything to do with a commitment to the truth and just be honest that it is only a cover for more liberal knee jerk anti government stuff.   There is absolutely no moral foundation to these objections whatsoever

              •  There is no moral foundation? (0+ / 0-)

                No moral foundation for being adamantly opposed to another "no boots on the ground" conflict war?

                P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:38:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There certainly isn't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid

                  For disingenuously stick broccoli in ones ears in an effort to fend of any call to take action to address preventable evil because one can't be bothered.  A lot of options exist besides full invasion, as you know.  Obviously, a judicious estimation that some other response is the best way forward is wise.  A full scale abandonment of any responsibility is much less so.

                  I wasn't very clear, and I'm probably still not

          •  And... (0+ / 0-)

            we have the NSA ...
            Can't imagine anyone would think Obama needs to lie about this.

          •  Israel HAS been trying to goad the U.S. (0+ / 0-)

            . . . into intervening in Syria for the better part of a year now. To the question of "who benefits" from U.S. intervention the answer is clear: Israel & Saudi Arabia. To point out this obvious fact is not in & of itself conspiracy-mongering.

          •  It's a great shame this diary has been (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            angry marmot

            commandeered by CT loonies. It would have been interesting to have had a discussion of Obama's decision to require Congressional approval.

            In my view that decision was brilliant and goes some way towards rehabilitating Obama's reputation, which had been damaged recently by his apparent complacency on NSA surveillance and by his incautious language about chem weapons being a "red line" requiring US retaliation.

            I think Obama greatly regretted being boxed in by his "red line" remark and actually dreaded the consequences of a US retaliatory strike (which can accomplish nothing positive but could make matters considerably worse). I think his behavior over the past few months shows he was very reluctant to involve the US in the Syrian mess. He won a Nobel peace prize; I think he's sufficiently self aware to realize a true peacemaker does not engage in "humanitarian bombing" just to save face and silence political critics. I think Parliament's refusal to David Cameron suggested to Obama the desirability of obtaining Congress' refusal to approve a dangerous strike on Syria.

            So Obama decided to put the question of intervention in Congress' hands, knowing that Congress is deeply divided and that most Republicans will automatically oppose whatever proposals come out of the Obama Administration. Crash McCain and Huckleberry Graham are likely to vote "no" for example. Many Dems are likely to vote no. The ensuing debate could reveal that "humanitarian bombing" would accomplish nothing and might raise huge new risks. American voters could help shape the debate by writing to their reps in Congress. And the whole episode could help reverse the Presidential monopoly of war powers that has been accumulating for decades; we could finally restore war powers responsibility to Congress where it belongs (especially given the division in Congress, which means it will be less likely in the future that the US can jump blindly and unthinkably into dangerous foreign adventures.

            It's also going to be gratifying to see McCain's bluff called and McCain forced to vote against an action he so desperately wanted escalated into full-scale war.

        •  Still don't see where the lie is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sam I Am

          They're saying that based on all the evidence they have so far it appears that the chemical attack came from the Assad regime. To accuse the President of lying about this is outrageous even for all the Obama haters on this site.

          •  I am not an Obama hater so don't try to paint me (0+ / 0-)

            as one.

            Yes, they're saying they have evidence that it was Assad, and they're saying they don't need no stinkin' UN to back them up, and they're saying that it is almost certain that Assad will perpetrate more chemical attacks, and I have deja fucking vu.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:15:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's the difference versus Iraq (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, Gator Keyfitz, Sam I Am

        I think everyone would agree now that there was a chemical attack in this case.

        I was pretty skeptical but the administration's explanation and claims of evidence makes a lot more sense than the "anti-Assad forces gassed their own stronghold to try to get the US involved" false flag theory.  Obviously anyone who thinks the US is dying to get involved for some reason and helped stage it really believes in a crackpot conspiracy theory.

        I haven't seen any evidence from Assad or Russia showing that someone other than the Syrian government actually did it.  I would think they would be able to produce something other than yelling "prove we did it!" at the world.

        That being said... if we're going to pick sides here we need to do more than just a token strike and have a mission to accomplish.

      •  Um, Doctors Without Borders says otherwise! (0+ / 0-)

        They've made it very clear that only 355 people can be confirmed dead.

        How's that get up to 1200 is a bit of a mystery to me.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        Do you have any links establishing what you're claiming now is not CT or was, in fact, "perpetrated by Assad"?

        I'll wait.

        Belief does not equal evidence, either.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:43:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can I help it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          El Mito

          that you're so uninformed?  YOUR link is a freaking week old.  Nothing like keeping up-to-date, eh?

          Enjoy your CT.

          •  Can I help it that you are spreading (0+ / 0-)

            misinformation?
            Wide Range of Death Tolls in Alleged Syria Gassing

            (note the link is 9 hours old)

            The United States claims 1429.
            The "Syria Opposition" claims 1460

            Versus reality:

            The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British based watch group, says the total is 502.

            Doctors without Borders body count STILL STANDS at 355 dead.

            Have fun with your propaganda, the truth is out.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:39:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm afraid (0+ / 0-)

              you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.  Your next comment proves it.  I do not understand you people supporting Assad.  Nor do I want to.

              •  Hon, the facts are getting out, our government (0+ / 0-)

                lies about everything.

                And your "group" think accusations are meaningless.  I never said I supported anyone.  

                I do not support some false narrative of the "moral urgency" whereby our military assets, men and women will be used to attack another sovereign nation that has done NOTHING to us.

                I do not support endless unfunded wars that are forcing millions of Americans into perpetual poverty that then goes on to kill 133,000 of us each and every year!

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                I do not support the criminal neocons that have infiltrated and seized our government and are using it to do their bidding.

                "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
                ~Henry Kissinger -
                You'll have to do better than your false accusations against me.  How about next time you keep to the facts?

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:35:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hon? (0+ / 0-)

                  That says everything anyone here needs to know about you.

                  And fuck any innocent civilians getting gassed and napalmed.

                  Yup.

                  btw, I don't see where military strikes will do any good, either.  But at least, I've given 2 thoughts and 2 shits about the innocent civilians caught up in the middle of this, which is more than I can say about you.  All you care about is "stickin' it to the MAN".

                  Yeah, some progressive.

                  •  ROFL, your arrogant relativistic morality (0+ / 0-)

                    is untenable.  You're ad homimens prove that you cannot present a legitimate argument here.

                    Have fun with your propaganda laced diatribes, it won't work on me.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:59:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ROFL? You think this is funny? (0+ / 0-)

                      Try some sources that aren't telling you what you want to hear.

                      The event happened on Aug 21.  The early reports, like Doctors without Borders, were announce3d on Aug 24, 3 days after the attack.  

                      The SNC chief said that the overall death toll stood at an estimated 1300, as only a fraction of the bodies could be collected and many died within their own homes.
                      Hard to retrieve bodies in the middle of a war zone, as anyone with a lick of sense would know.  Not to mention that you're ignoring these chemicals continue to kill people for days and weeks after an attack.
                      The Syrian government initially prevented United Nations investigators from reaching the sites of the attacks despite their accommodations being only a few kilometers away.  On 25 August, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit the site of the attacks.[304][305] The UN inspectors arrived to the site of the attacks, despite being fired upon by an unknown party while underway. UN officials say that inspectors have gathered "valuable" evidence.[306] On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, were ordered by the Syrian government to return due to 'safety concerns', and the inspectors could not reach the six main sites
                      Well, gosh oh golly, why would the Syrians not want the UN inspectors at the site?

                      Of course, I'm sure you're going to claim this is all bullshite, because, you know, wikipedia is being run and controlled by "The MAN"!

                      And do you listen to yourself?  Lets assume for shits and giggles (which appears to be the level of consideration that you gave this) that the preliminary figure of 355 that was given was it.  No one died after Aug 23-24 and all bodies had been retrieved (which wasn't the case).  Are you trying to say, "Oh, only 355 people died.  No big deal."  Cuz that's how you're coming across.

                      In all the verbal diarrhea you spewed in your earlier comment, did it ever even occur to you to mention once anything about all the victims?  Once?  Not even, "Gosh, it's horrible so many people were killed".

                      No, you've said nothing about the victims, other than to comment that ... it wasn't so bad.

                      And you think I should give a shit about your opinion.

                      •  Give it up please. (0+ / 0-)

                        The announcement by Doctors without Borders was made after their doctors were out of harms way and they still have not released specifics of what towns and cities they were in, for their own protection.  They were on the ground during and immediately after these events!  

                        The propaganda you spew is disgusting.  Wikipedia is your "legitimate" source here? Wikipedia is a basic starting point if you're going to research a topic, they are not in anyway shape or form "the man", it is an editable reference point that can be done by anyone in the fucking world.  Show me the links to legitimate sources please!  If those links come by way of Wiki, all the better.  Wiki itself is not proof of anything.

                        And Hon, why are you now attempting to create a false narrative about me and my alleged motives here?  Where did I ever say anything about "the man" or that I want to "stick it to them"?

                        OH, wait I never did.  I don't greedily consume the propaganda our lying and criminal government puts out, as you clearly have.

                        Anything the SNC claims are suspect and not reliable because they want to rule Syria and those claims are coming from Qatar, where their newly "elected" "opposition" leader is.  That "opposition" leader would be equal to Robert E Lee, the confederate leader in the South during our Civil War getting hold of a microphone and saying shit to discredit Lincoln.  I don't believe anything these criminals say.  They are traitors and criminals, just like the South was when they started our civil war!

                        And for the last fucking time, the reason Syria is a goddamn war zone is because we've funded, trained and armed the rebels there, period!  WE created this war zone!  The 100,000 plus dead there IS OUR FAULT!

                        Another 355 or 1400 (whomever you chose to believe) IS immaterial when we've created the conditions that have killed over 100,000! Oh gosh golly, where's your moral outrage about the other 99,000+ dead!?

                        Where would your relativistic morality be if the Chinese funded, trained and armed all those radical militia groups the SPLC rants about???  What if they got all the free publicly of the Chinese media to say whatever they want, would you believe them???

                        As for the bullshit propaganda that "Syria refused to allow the UN in" IS refuted by this:

                        Syria asks UN to immediately investigate 3 new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels

                        Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.

                        The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army, the diplomat said.

                        "We are asking UN to incorporate 3 more locations where the Syrian soldiers inhaled the nerve gas also in the suburbs of Damascus. So the spectrum of investigation is increasing compared to the initial phase of investigation," Jaafari said.

                        And if our warmongering President wanted the truth to get out then why has he unilaterally refused to allow the UN to actually stay in Syria and continue their investigations?

                        Oh, that's right this article says it all for us:

                        U.S. rejects Syrian request that U.N. inspectors stay longer, possibly delaying military strike

                        The Obama administration appeared Wednesday to be forging ahead with preparations to attack Syria. It dismissed a Syrian request to extend chemical weapons inspections there as a delaying tactic and said it saw little point in further discussion of the issue at the United Nations.

                        -cut-

                        U.S. officials made clear...“We see no avenue forward [at the United Nations] given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful Council action on Syria,”

                        -cut-

                        The U.S. dismissal seemed to put the administration and its allies at odds with the U.N. leadership. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, without setting a deadline or addressing the Syrian request for an extension, said it was “essential to establish the facts” and the U.N. team “needs time to do its job.”

                        You see, sir, I detest propaganda, no matter where it comes from!

                        These bastards want war and by goddamn they're going to get it, no matter what!  So, to stop the truth from being determined, they've unilaterally refused to allow the UN to actually do its job and find out who made these attacks!

                        Nope can't have that can we?  So to get the UN out of Syria, we threatened to use our military assets "by Saturday!"

                        US set for Syria strikes after Kerry says evidence of chemical attack is 'clear'

                        An attack could happen as soon as Saturday when UN weapons inspectors are due to leave Syria after their mission in the country was apparently cut short amid expectations of an attack. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, told security council members on Friday evening that it could be two weeks before the final results of their analysis is ready.

                        -cut-

                        However, in a line reminiscent of George W Bush's "axis of evil", Kerry specifically mentioned a host of US enemies, saying Iran could be "emboldened" if the US did not act.

                        "It is about Hezbollah and North Korea and every other terrorist group that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons' current or future use? Or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?"

                        Here we fucking go AGAIN!  OH my god, the "Axis Of Evil" rears it's ugly head!

                        Enough said!

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:08:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  OH, and by the way, you still haven't proven (0+ / 0-)

            that the Syrian Government was responsible for the attack.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:42:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You need to go to msnbc.com and click (0+ / 0-)

              on the video of Richard Engel reporting from the region, where he mentions his report from last night about the school that Assad has firebombed with napalm.  Then come back here and continue telling me what a great guy Assad is, who would dream of using chemical weapons.

    •  I agree that we should not go to war. And it... (57+ / 0-)

      ...is obvious from his speech that he will try to make the case to Congress.

      But that's a lot different than ignoring Congress and launching an attack without debate or a vote. And it provides those of us who oppose intervention to make our case and do all we can to persuade members of Congress not yet persuaded that going into Syria is a bad idea.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:35:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you oppose ANY intervention? Or... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am

        ...just military intervention?

        What alternative actions do you suggest?  Or...
        ...do you think nothing should be done?

        "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

        by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I oppose military intervention in what's (0+ / 0-)

          essentially a Sunni-Shiite/Alewite civil war. A few days of "humanitarian bombing" is not going to destroy Assad's chem weapons stores nor will it deter Assad OR his opponents from using chem weapons or committing further atrocities.

          Given that Obama boxed himself in with his "red line" remark, it would be far preferable if he limited US intervention to increasing non-lethal aid to the rebels and aid to the refugee camps on the Lebanese and Turkish borders. He could still revert to that course of action if Congress refuses (as I hope) to endorse a "humanitarian bombing" campaign.  

      •  True....but still Obama has NOT (5+ / 0-)

        made the right decision where it matters.   The REAL important right decision would be to give up the idea of going in another war.

      •  NBC polls say public is 50/50....I just (5+ / 0-)

        don't believe this. NO one I have spoken with wants another front, for ANY reason.

        And while watching the news, a guest mentioned that only 10% of US public was for bombing Syria, and Wolf B. from CNN, QUICKLY  corrected him saying it was more like 49-50%.

        I call foul! Bull!

        •  What happened to 9%? nt (0+ / 0-)

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:55:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on how question is worded (6+ / 0-)

            or at least that's usually the case. If you word the question carefully, and you count everything from even-steven/neutral to strongly agree as "support the President," you can get the numbers up to 50% on just about anything.
             

          •  That 9% was for a scenario (3+ / 0-)

            that did not include confirmation of Syrian gov. using CW on civilians.

            Q2. As you may have heard, there is fighting in Syria between government forces and anti-government groups. In your opinion, should the United States intervene in Syria, or not?

            Aug 19-23 Should intervene:9%
            Aug 26-30 Should intervene:20%

            Here the key question from that poll:
            Q3. There have recently been reports of the Syrian government using chemical weapons such as Sarin Gas against protestors. In your opinion, if the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against Syrians, should the United States intervene in Syria, or not?

            Aug 19-23 Should intervene:25%
            Aug 26-30 Should intervene:29%

            So, in that original Ipsos/Reuters poll, on the question including Assad using CW, it actually had 25%.

            But here's the catch. They redid that poll, and even after widespread reporting of Assad using CW, the number still only rose 4% to 29%.

            That's still 20 whole points under NBC's bogus pollaganda.

            •  Oh Yeah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              k9disc

              here's the NBC version:

              It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons or not?

              Yes, should take military action .................. 42
              No, should not take military action.............. 50
              Not sure .................................................... 8

              That's practically a push poll.
        •  You haven't been paying attention. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          driftwood, Treetrunk, NonnyO

          By changing the wording of the question, you can get positive responses from 10% to well over 50%.

          Of course, everyone thinks the most valid wording is the one that supports the percentage that confirms what they already believe.

          "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

          by sagesource on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:27:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Polls are not the count that matters.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treetrunk, Meteor Blades, kkkkate

          they move all the time depending on the framing of the question. Dont believe any polls until after the vote is taken.

          This is also crucial to Democracy. Let the PROCESS work. Focus on the process and making it fair and open. Dont worry about the ever changing numbers. That is for Nate Silver to worry about.

          The rest of us just need to be heard now. I am actually in favor of some sort of costly, to Assad, intervention. I will be speaking in favor of that. Good luck to your side, and may the best arguments win.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:27:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cable News Media must haz warz. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          driftwood, Fixed Point Theorem

          If the world were at peace, the ratings of CNN, NBC and FOX news would plummet.

          I don't watch CNN anymore, and I certainly can't watch more than five seconds of "The Obama and Trayvon Martin Haters News Channel."

          I listen to public radio and the internet, because they don't need to exploit our troops to get their material.

          This time I'm not watching any in-bedded journalists chumming around with troops that are about to die.  No ratings from me!

        •  75% of the French are also opposed. (0+ / 0-)
      •  "Going in" (8+ / 0-)

        No one is talking about "going in."  What is being discussed is punishing the Assad regime for using chemical weapons on its own people.  Its wrong and cannot be tolerated.  This should be a no brainer.  If we - and the rest of the community of nations - fail to act we will AGAIN be standing by and allowing genocide.  Because if he gets away with this, Assad will not think twice about doing it again.  Once that moral line has been crossed, it is much easier the next time.  

        This regime is in a fight for its life.  What we are saying is "keep it a fair fight."

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:55:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your comment reminded me... (4+ / 0-)

          ...of thoughts that have been occupying the back of my mind.

          Namely, the...racism?...nationalism?  I'm not sure what to call it...

          But the gist of it is, "...let all them damn Arabs all kill each other."  "They've all been fighting each other for thousands of years, who cares."

          I've heard similar sentiments expressed about violence, between and among, inner-city gangs and neighborhoods.

          The idea of doing nothing...it simply chills me to the bone, in light of what, I believe, the Assad regime has done.

          "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

          by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:29:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dead on (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Marjmar, Sam I Am, Yasuragi

            if this were Europeans being gassed the only debate would be "how hard and how soon?"

            We stood by as Rwanda descended into hell.  It wasnt our fight.

            We could care less that the entire Horn of Africa is a death zone as long as our shipping gets by unmolested.

            We dont care about how our diamonds and minerals get from Africa to here as long as they are pretty and make our cell phones work.

            If we ignore this we will truly be saying we dont care about anyone south of Rome.  Seriously try that as an exercise - draw a line around the world at 40N latitude.  Now name an intervention to prevent harm below that line.  

            Now having said that, I posted before that our primary interest in intervening in Syria is to prevent the regime from ending this too quickly.  Hezbollah is getting decimated by the fighting there and Iran is pouring in resources - resources that they cant afford and that then cant be used elsewhere against us.  So even our intervention is less about stoping evil than consuming evil.

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:40:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hadn't even considered... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kkkkate, Yasuragi

              ...the more practical/strategic...implications, as you noted in your last paragraph.

              At this moment, I thank the sky above that I do not have to make a decision about this.

              "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

              by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If Europeans were being gassed (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, Yasuragi

              We'd invoke the NATO treaty and we'd have the UK, France and others in the fight because they are our REAL allies.  

              If you claim you care for everybody, I don't think you really care for anybody, because human nature doesn't function like that.  You have friends.  You have family.  They are your priorities.  

              If it were otherwise, we'd see a strong international response from the international community and if you want to work for that kind of world then support international organizations not unilateral action.

              •  I believe in rule of law (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Yasuragi

                I believe in keeping our word.

                I believe in fighting evil.

                ANd what if Finland or Sweden were to use chemical weapons on their people.  Not Nato members.  How about Azerbaijan or Armenia?  Think we would debate "if" or "when"?

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:06:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The only way to deter use of chem weapons (0+ / 0-)

                is to confront the user with collective action by the international treaty organizations that have banned use of chem weapons: the UN, the Arab League, NATO.

                There is no chance of such collective action at this time. An exclusively US punitive strike (what I call "humanitarian bombing," to point out the absurdity of the notion) will accomplish nothing and could even expand and escalate the war (Israel could also invoke it to press us harder to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities). The only thing a US strike would do is make Americans feel a little better about themselves, reassure them they still have some power and still occupy the moral high ground. But that is NOT a good reason to go to war.

          •  Given that my children and grandchildren... (5+ / 0-)

            ...are Arab, that's not my view.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:39:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why are you willng to let Assad (0+ / 0-)

              get away unscathed from using chemical weapons on civilians?

              Not to mention the fact that Iran and North Korea will no doubt be taking note of the Wests' response to Assad's atrocity.

              You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

              by Sam I Am on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're making an assumption not in evidence... (8+ / 0-)

                ...I could as easily ask you why you support a plan that the
                White House itself admits won't get rid of chemical weapons and won't topple Assad.

                I'd like to see a broad-based program that STARTS by dealing with the horrific refugee problem in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian children of suffering. I don't see those suggesting we bomb Assad saying anything about that. I could be nasty and say it's because they don't give s--- about Arab children.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:16:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's a view that is, sadly, far too common in the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Marjmar, Yasuragi

              U.S., though.

              Mostly on the right, but also on the left.

              It's something that really bothered me during the Libyan Revolution.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:34:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I did not for a moment think... (0+ / 0-)

              ...[that] would be your view, MB.

              David Koch's yes - you, no.

              "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

              by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:51:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The chemical attacks were to provoke the US. . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO

          into another war in which the radical anti-American forces will have another bite of the apple. They were upset that Obama decided to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq. If a Libertarian were president and Libertarians were in the majority in Congress, would a chemical attack have taken place? I don't believe it would have.

          The victims of this attack were bait to get us back into the arena.  

          When 9-11 occurred, we were saying the same thing. It was so horrible that we had to do something--anything--to make sure more 9-11's didn't take place.  Yet Bush went into Afghanistan for one reason, to lay a pipe.

          Maybe doing nothing after 9-11 would have temporarily made us look like we were not compassionate, maybe even made us look like cowards, but I think in the long run, perhaps that should have been the best course of action.

          •  It would have been the best... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk

            ... course of action.

            Maybe doing nothing after 9-11 would have temporarily made us look like we were not compassionate, maybe even made us look like cowards, but I think in the long run, perhaps that should have been the best course of action.
            The 19 criminals who used box cutters to hijack four planes which they then flew into buildings were all dead with the nearly 3000 people they murdered.  There was no one to put on trial, no one to "go after."

            OBL said he was the mastermind, but since the 19 criminals were dead, who's to gainsay him if he was lying because he wanted the attention?  (OBL was mentally unstable, remember.)  OBL was only the leader of a little band of religiously fanatic criminals.  Neither he nor the hijacker-murders spoke for anyone but their little gang of criminals in Al Qaeda.  They were good only at guerrilla warfare tactics that do a lot of damage, take a few lives, and instill fear into people.  [It's a successful warfare tactic to use against large armies; the Celts in Gaul, Germania, and Britain were very good at these lightning assaults against invading armies from Rome +/-2000 years ago, but they didn't commit suicide in the process.]

            Constitutionally, legally, Congress could NOT declare a war against Afghanistan after 9/11 - or, later, Iraq - because no one in either country had actually attacked us.  Al Qaeda was hiding in inaccessible places in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The 19 hijackers-murderers (15 Saudis, 2 from UAE, 1 Lebanese, 1 Egyptian) were not from either Afghanistan or Iraq.  Neither country was EVER a direct threat to us because they didn't have the military forces to attack or invade the US.  In lieu of that, the Bushista regime came up with "oh, they have WMDs.  Saddam killed his own people!  We have to go in and rescue the innocents." (Words to that effect.  He neglected to tell the full truth: the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq!!!)

            So, Georgie the Lesser threw temper tantrums and bullied Congress into giving him war powers through AUMF.  No doubt the military-industrial complex and oil corporations bribed congressional members in the background, too, but I still remember some of those whining temper tantrums Dumbya had.  Off to Afghanistan we went..., against the better judgment of sane people in this country and elsewhere.  Ditto Iraq later.

            The US Constitution is absolutely unequivocal on the matter of war powers.  ONLY Congress can declare war.  Period.

            The Founding Fathers made Congress the more important body; that's why they are dealt with first; Article I deals with the Legislative branch and Article II deals with the Executive branch.  There is a long list of Congressional duties and responsibilities.  Among that list:

               Article I, Section. 8.
               The Congress shall have Power ...

                To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

                To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                To provide and maintain a Navy;

                To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

                To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

                To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...;

            [That last part is what the first part of the Second Amendment is about.  Remember, we did not have a standing army when our Founding Document was written.  That didn't come until the early 19th century.]

            Congress can pass AUMFs to appease unintellectual morons like Dumbya (and now Obama is acting like he never taught con law and has forgotten what the Constitution says)..., but AUMFs are UNconstitutional.  Read the whole Constitution: Nowhere does the US Constitution give Congress the authority to transfer any of their constitutional duties and responsibilities to a president.

            Obama (or any other president) can SAY they are briefing Congress and asking for debate, etc., but the FACT is, the US Constitution does NOT give a president the authority to declare war against anyone, least of all a little gang of criminals who represent no one but themselves, speak only for their little gang of criminals, not any country or any country's leader, and are not part of any country's military.

            Ergo, the best course of action after 9/11 would have been to band with other nations and send law enforcement personnel after the criminals who claimed they helped to plan 9/11 (since the real perpetrators were already dead and there was no one to put on trial)..., not armies to illegally invade other countries.

            We would do well to emulate the actions of other countries who have dealt with these criminal assaults for a lot longer than we have and have more sense than we do about how to go about catching, arresting, and putting criminals on trial for murder and property damage.

            In the case of Syria: We have no business dropping bombs on them.  They have not invaded or attacked the US.  The US is NOT the police force of the world.  The US can't afford to keep funding these illegal and unconstitutional military forays into other countries, all of which break treaties unto which we signed on ages ago and we perform war crimes in the process of bombing and/or invading these countries by conventional weapons or drones.

            It's just not feasible to keep feeding money to the military-industrial, oil, and mercenary corporations, as well as add to the debt we already have that won't be repaid until long after people my age are dead and gone and the younger generations then become responsible for the debts we incurred.

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:18:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Obama doesn't have a good record on making his (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, NonnyO, Laconic Lib

        case to Congress.

        He tends to toss things into Congress's lap and then shut up and sit on his hands.

        Obama is also hindered by his obsession with secrecy. If he wants the public's support he should play the tapes and show the satellite pictures.

        I am especially interested in how John Kerry knows the Syrian casualty total to so many significant digits.

      •  Well of course nobody's talking about going to war (10+ / 0-)

        He doen't need Congressional approval any more than he needed it to launch cruise missiles into Libya a couple of years ago, or Clinton the three times he hit Iraq with cruise missiles (see my comment just below).

        However, given the hysteria going on about this, going to Congress this time is the smart move.

        They won't approve it, and then Obama is off the hook. He'll be accused of lacking "leadership," of course, but the only one who looks like a leader here is Obama.

        If the chemical attacks continue, as they probably will, Congress will get the blame. And Parliament. Well see what France and Germany do. Probably nothing without us.

        Enjoy the San Diego Zoo's panda cam! Now with new baby panda! And support Bat World Sanctuary

        by Fonsia on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:04:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That can be addressed in any post-debate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treetrunk

          declaration. Congress can say, no go, UNLESS.. and then direct the President to strike on a moment's notice. That is called Prior Consent or even a Declaration, and it preserves Congress' role as the Declarer of War, and the President as the Executor of war.

          Alltogether, this is the best formulation for a changing and complex situation. We will get the best outcome this way.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:30:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If Congress refused to authorize a strike, (0+ / 0-)

          not only would Obama be off the hook, but we'd get what we've waited for for fifty years: the dangerous accumulation of war powers in the hands of the POTUS would start to be reversed. It could become less likely that the US could immediately jump blindly into risky foreign adventures.

          So great good could come of Obama's decision to pass the buck to Congress.

      •  Agree.....but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, Treetrunk

        If Congress votes NO and the shit hits the fan in the Middle East, I don't want people moaning that Obama should have done something.

    •  Even if all that is said is true, the US should (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erratic, flatford39, Treetrunk

      not attack Syria.  

      However, if Congress and the President decide to attack, I will support such action as it was decided Constitutionally.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He'll forcefully advocate for war, but I give (16+ / 0-)

      Mr. Obama full credit for taking his case to Congress.

      Now it's up to Congress to refuse to authorize another war. I don't much care if they vote No More War for reasons of principle or for sordid partisan politics as usual...

      as long as in the end, the answer is NO.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ummm (0+ / 0-)

      Why did it take him so long to come to this position and seek authorization as well as to make a case to us citizens?

      I just don't get it.

    •  Lies? I call B.S on that. (10+ / 0-)

      Juan Cole was right...the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Bush's lies are haunting Obama.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You appear to be confusing this with what (16+ / 0-)

      happened in 2003.

      It's the boy crying wolf syndrome. Lies then does not mean lies now.

      The evidence then was one highly suspect defector's statement to the Germans that even the Germans and our own CIA (until Cheney shut 'em up) said they didn't believe. "Curveball" even admitted later that he was lying.

      The evidence now is our own spy satellites, communications monitoring, and statements from the actual medical personnel on the scene.

      All of that has more credibility than "Curveball."

      And who said this would be a "war?" We're talking about cruise missiles hitting Assad's air bases, probably. Basically the same as when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles into the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad to retaliate for the assassination plot against George H.W. Bush in 1993.

      Clinton did that again in Iraq in 1996 to retaliate against the Iraqis attacking our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone.

      Clinton did it again in 1998, hitting Baghdad with cruise missles to retaliate against Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with U.N. chemical weapons inspections.

      And Obama did it in Libya to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and to establish a no-fly zone.

      We've done this lots in the past several decades. Some of these involved wars, most didn't. Neither Clinton nor Obama sought Congressional approval for those strikes, and our democracy did not crumble.

      But I doubt Obama actually will make the strikes this time, because I strongly doubt that Congress will approve it. Pretty smart politics on Obama's part.

      Enjoy the San Diego Zoo's panda cam! Now with new baby panda! And support Bat World Sanctuary

      by Fonsia on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:59:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm wondering going to Congress is to save face... (6+ / 0-)

        I don't question that chemical weapons were used, and also have little doubt Assad's side was responsible.

        The question is what to do about it. I have big doubts that a limited strike will have any positive effect. And bigger concerns that it may have unintended consequences, including retaliation or escalation, or more attacks on American interests in the future.

        Now that the President has tripped over his own red line, maybe having Congress say no will be his way to avoid military action that he is espousing, maybe to appear strong, knowing Congress will delay the decision, letting it fade from the headlines, maybe ultimately end up getting rejected.

        This actually worked in the British Parliament, the Prime Minister ended up looking bad, but the country also avoided getting entangled in another Middle Eastern mess.

        Having Congress say no may also make Obama look weak, but may be the best outcome. Possibly this is what Obama is expecting. He looks like he's responding to his unfortunate red line comment, but we actually stay out of the civil war.

        •  If so, Obama is the greatest president ever (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary in NY
          Having Congress say no may also make Obama look weak, but may be the best outcome. Possibly this is what Obama is expecting. He looks like he's responding to his unfortunate red line comment, but we actually stay out of the civil war.
          That would be so cool. If Obama is really going to take the political fall to keep us out of another potential war, he's the greatest in my book.
    •  How about this response to your lies charge? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth

      SHIT.

      "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

      by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:01:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's take it down a notch shall we? NT (2+ / 0-)

      "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

      by Wynter on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:05:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  All you are doing is annoying people... (0+ / 0-)

          Not swaying their opinion.

          If you have a point in FACT then make it. No one will listen to a thread made in anger and rage. We can get upset till we are blue in the face, but it doesn't build a consensus on what we should be doing about this situation. It just drives people away from your position. No matter how noble or vain it may be.

          "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

          by Wynter on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:02:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  make $76 every hour on the laptop (0+ / 0-)

      my roomate's sister-in-law makes $76 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 9 months but last month her check was $21746 just working on the laptop for a few hours. find here.... http://JOBS4U.7.ly/...

  •  Clearly, Obama does not understand the whole (39+ / 0-)

    jackbooted authoritarian dictator concept.

    "You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody." - my dad

    by briefer on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:29:05 AM PDT

  •  I listened to Kerry's speech yesterday (31+ / 0-)

    and to Obama's today. It seems pretty clear to me that there was a change in plans overnight. Kerry seemed to be pretty clearly justifying immediate action. This is not even calling congress back into emergency session. It is waiting for the ordinary schedule.

    I am very glad to see that military action has been postponed, but I think that there are some more complicated political dynamics at play here.

  •  I was struck by the fact (38+ / 0-)

    that even in this, the president has to be begging the GOP to do the right thing. To put partisan politics aside and act like grownups for once.
    I think this was the right move by the president.
    Not since Washington have we seen a president willing give up power as we saw this just do.
    Dick Cheney must be turning in his...er...must be having a hard time just about now.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

  •  Good, forced to back down due to pressure from (13+ / 0-)

    the people.  First good step.  Now we as citizens need to put pressure on Congress to respect our will: No war of aggression against Syria.  

  •  Listened to the President. His ongoing courage (20+ / 0-)

    and dedication to do the right thing, no matter how hard or how much responsibility he has to bear, makes me proud.

    I love this President.

  •  lets the "do-nothing" caucus in Congress argue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erratic, k9disc, Fonsia, Treetrunk

    its position also and have the up or down vote it has demanded.

    I expect Hillary Clinton will be forcefully arguing for a military response.  Nancy Pelosi has already indicated she supports it.

    •  And the Rethugs will oppose it, simply because (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      imfunnytoo, Hey338Too, Treetrunk, Lawrence

      they hate Obama and can't bare the thought of voting his way on any major issue.

      And that kind of instinctive opposition is not the debate that is needed.

      Screw them.

      •  On the other hand... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NedSparks, Sam I Am

        ... if the vote goes as you think, and Assad uses gas again - on whose hands is the blood?  The administration has stated its goal and it's reasoning for making its decision.

        My guess is that the President has plenty of evidence and will make a very strong case for the statements he made today.  If the evidence is disregarded in favor of partisanship, any future use of weapons of this type is going to be directly tied to those that didn't look at the facts and didn't stand with the President.

        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 Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:47:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Rethugs won't see it that way. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too

          Those that don't look at facts don't come to intelligent conclusions.

        •  You forget the wording of any Declaration.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too

          can say.. not now. BUT if Assad uses these weapons again, we authorize the President to use his best judgment as to a remedy. This preserves the hammer over Assad. Make him sweat. Make him wake each day and discover.. nothing has happened but it could be today. This is the kind of torture a dictator cannot tolerate. He will make some other mistake, and then. Wham. And it wont even cost us that much when it happens, because half his leadership will have defected already, and we will likely know where he is. There is nothing lost by this.  

          This puts us in the drivers seat for maximum pressure to stop mass atrocities. Thats what we needed. Not to DO anything right this second, but to be ABLE to make him sweat each and every minute until the end of his life. This is the most powerful thing Obama could have done. Excellent. Bravo. Brilliant.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:50:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with your assessment... (0+ / 0-)

            ... and was responding to Livosh1's concerns - that the rethugs would not allow any use of force by this President regardless of the evidence.  

            To be honest, the idea of "wait until next time" presents a larger problem than acting based on the current evidence related to the most recent abuse.  Who knows how big the "next time" is going to be?  If it's "small", as has been alleged in previous abuses, do we not act?  If it's huge, how are we not complicit?  That kind of language could allow Assad to skate along the edge of the cliff.

            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 Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:51:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure there are problems with "No, but.." (0+ / 0-)

              But it does have some distinct advantages too. I think in the modern world, Prior Approval of Military Action is still demanded, with some explicit provision for immediate action should it be required. This is a far cry from the "You go ahead Mr. President, and we will call you in 30 days and see if you want to escalate that war you started. We will rubber stamp it because guys have died, and well, you cant go back after that."

              The War Powers Act has Richard Nixon's Machiavellian Slitheriness  and backhanded manipulations all over it. It needs to be abandoned, and soon. Now. Thanks to Obama, we have started the abandonment process.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:05:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  If I was the Prez I'd let them decide everything (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treetrunk

        from now on... Good to have the voices of the "obstructionist" umm...Congress....

      •  Ah, then the Republicans become weak on (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, Treetrunk, PorridgeGun

        national security.

        Pass the popcorn.

      •  Yes the progressives that oppose the strike (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity

        and the Republicans who will vote against Anything Obama Proposes will vote the same way...

        Dear budget cutting GOP'ers: Public transit is my “car.” And frankly, I’d like it back.

        by imfunnytoo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:10:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Uh-huh. Something must be done. A military ... (31+ / 0-)

      ...strike is something. So a military strike must be done.

      There are choices between a military strike and doing nothing.

      The concern for the well-being of Syrian children is well placed. Since as many as half a million Syrian children are in refugee camps outside Syria because of the civil war and the UN High Commissioner on Refugees says the budget for dealing with these exiles is only 38% funded, we could start showing that concern (without the need for a debate in Congress) by boosting the U.S. contribution for that funding.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:43:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And your suggestion addresses... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the use of chemical weapons how, exactly?

        "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

        by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm waiting to see what the UN team has... (16+ / 0-)

          ...to say in this regard before making a personal decision on that.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:47:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think anyone disputes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk

            that chemical weapons were used. It seems the only question the UN team will be answering is which, not who. What difference will their report make when it comes to deciding who to 'punish'?

            47 is the new 51!

            by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There's a range of things the UN team might say (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Treetrunk, Yasuragi

            And it would be interesting to see people go on the record and say what action they would lean towards supporting for different possible cases.  Or maybe they would want to avoid committing themselves the way some people think Obama boxed himself in with his "red line" comment.

            Unlike Pelosi and impeachment, perhaps it is wise to leave options on the table (like a military strike) until there are fewer unknowns.  Perhaps it would be wrong to absolutely rule out a military solution at this point.

        •  MB's suggestion addresses the needs (11+ / 0-)

          of Syrians.  

          Surprisingly, after being attacked with chemical weapons, they could use humanitarian aid more than more bombing.

          That is, of course, an issue for those of us who care about the well-being of people, rather than finding excuses to invade other countries.

          Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          by Kimbeaux on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:54:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great. (0+ / 0-)

            Indeed, the Syrian people need much in the way of aid and assistance.

            Surprisingly, there are those of us who care about deterring/preventing the use of chemical weapons and making after-the-fact aid less necessary.

            "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

            by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:58:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fine. Show evidence of the effectiveness (4+ / 0-)

              of US military action as a deterrent/preventative and show that military action can be implemented with less human casualties than the chemical weapons.

              After all, our military action in Iraq--ostensibly over weapons of mass destruction--certainly did not deter or prevent the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Why would we expect more military action to act as a deterrent now?

              Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              by Kimbeaux on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think evidence exists in... (0+ / 0-)

                ...Assad's not resorting to the use of chemical weapons, immediately; they're certainly effective, from what I've seen.

                Presumably because...Assad, et.al. know (or believe) there will/would be repercussions from the rest of the world community.

                So, our actions in Iraq may well have had a deterrent effect.  I cannot say for certain.

                But, what you are really asking for is "proof of a negative."  I can't do that.

                As for actions which result in "less human casualties than chemical weapons"...I'm no expert, but I think regular bombs are not as far reaching as chemical bombs...and then, it depends on the size of the bomb, and the targets(s) chosen.

                "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

                by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:47:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Very weak argument (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nailbanger, Laconic Lib, JVolvo

                  The world did nothing when Saddam used gas against the Iranians (using shells built by the Italians.)   By your logic, that would mean that Assad would have used chemical weapons as soon as possible since there were no consequences for Iraq and it was an effective battlefield tactic.

                •  Nope. Not asking for proof of a negative. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, LanceBoyle

                  An example of evidence supporting the effectiveness would be a correlation of military action with a drop in the use of chemical weapons.  Or correlate use of chemical weapons on continents that we have invaded versus use of chemical weapons on continents we haven't invaded.  (Correlation alone is insufficient to prove causation, but no correlation or inverse correlation would fail to support your case entirely.)

                  Conservative estimates of deaths in Iraq are around 120,000 Iraqis (possibly as many as 1,000,000) and 4,400 US soldiers.  There are 1,300 dead from what the UN investigators have determined to be a chemical attack.

                  Invading Iraq at best delayed the chemical weapons attack in Syria.  Obviously, if it deterred a chemical weapons attack, then chemical weapons wouldn't have been used.  So that's 125,000+ deaths that may have delayed an attack for 2 years.  

                  Not the best indicator of effectiveness for either deterrence or prevention.

                  Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                  by Kimbeaux on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:25:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  explain how (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, LanceBoyle

              a "limited" military strike will have any impact on the future use of chemical weapons.  That part keeps getting left out.

              Power to the Peaceful!

              by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:56:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well how does a pointless missile strike (7+ / 0-)

          address the use of chemical weapons?  The only way you deter is to threaten catastrophic consequences.  100K civilians have already died in a vicious civil war and you think Assad is going to be impressed by some token missiles?

          And if it's not that, then it's getting the US involved big time which could have horrific consequences for American troops.  

          Let the regional neighbors do something.

          Why do Americans have to do all the dying?

          •  I'd like to believe... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gator Keyfitz, Yasuragi

            ...should military action be taken, we wouldn't just lob a missile in any ol' direction over Syria.

            I haven't heard of a plan, so it's premature to determine that any military action would be "pointless" and/or "token" in nature.

            I've also not heard of any plan even hinting about putting our troops into Syria...

            At this point, there seems to be more speculative hysteria than measured reason...and sadly, most of that is on the side which opposes intervention (seemingly, of any kind).

            I too would very much appreciate Syria's Arab neighbors getting their heads out of their asses and, at least, coming up with something.

            I don't have any answers.  The only thing I'm certain of is, my cautious trust in President Obama in his role as Commander-in-Chief.

            "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

            by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:21:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you certainly don't have any answers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib

              and bombing almost certainly will not be an effective answer. It is not likely to have any impact at all on the future use of said weapons. So why do it?  

              Power to the Peaceful!

              by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:58:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wouldn't say your "answers" are better. (0+ / 0-)

                Neville Chamberlain comes to mind...

                "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

                by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If there are no good options (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib

                  maybe lobbing bombs should not be the de facto first choice.

                  No one has explained how these "limited strikes" will accomplish the goal of reducing the likelihood of future use.  A knee jerk bombing reaction is necessarily going to do that?

                  No one on this site or in the White House has explained how "doing something" or "sending a message" will actually accomplish anything positive.  That's my point.

                  Power to the Peaceful!

                  by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:21:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I promise. I understand your point. (0+ / 0-)

                    And "the point" being made by nearly everyone who says "No.  No military action.  No."

                    I just don't know if not taking military action is the better option.  I truly don't.  I've got lots of history that informs me otherwise...and lots of history (more recent) which tells me something different.

                    And I have begun studiously avoiding the pictures of the atrocity...because I realize my own reactionary tendency toward wanting to wring the living shit of the responsible party makes for less-than-optimal consideration.

                    That said...

                    I want to wring the living shit out of the responsible party.

                    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

                    by Marjmar on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:05:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is possible that "doing something" militarily (0+ / 0-)

                      might be the right thing to do.  But it would surprise me greatly if that turned out to be the case.  And our recent history with this sort of intervention provides no reason to back the interventionist position.  

                      Power to the Peaceful!

                      by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:12:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Obviously we should cover Syria with napalm (4+ / 0-)

          That will show the bastards.

          You can't cover up dead children with more dead children and call yourself a moral being.  

      •  Surface to Air missiles marked USA (0+ / 0-)

        at the moment, they are marked Saudi Arabia, but if we want to make the point a bit more.. pointed.. we simply get in the country enough armaments to ground Assad's air arm. Then, we can work on the artillery arm with small teams of rebels and small teams of Syrian soldiers fed up with genocide.

        Artillery remains the most effective and devestating battle weapon because its hard to spot, hard to take out and easy to move. It is a tough nut. But, if there cannot be total destruction of gas-bearing artillery, we can push for a NATO no fly zone, take out most AA installations, and go for any and all artillery and tanks we can find. It will take a while, but it can conveivably be done, if we want it to be done.

        We have time now, and we have options.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think this is the correct way to go about this. (0+ / 0-)

        But, while I'm concerned for the children of Syria, there are something on the order of 18,000 children who starve to death every day.  If we spent less on cruise missiles we could feed thousands more in the world and provide cleaner water.

        Priorites.  We certainly have them skewed inappropriately.

      •  I've never felt so lost, MB. (0+ / 0-)

        I read Eric Nelson's diary last night, and agreed with it.  I read every comment, and agreed with them all.  Result: I rec'd nothing in that diary.  

        I hate the idea of us intervening all over the world, just to maintain the brand of USA.  And I hate what's happening in Syria.  I'd feel better if Britain led the charge (which they won't), as they're ultimately the cause of all the troubles in the region -- they drew the borders, after all.

        And if Assad falls, to whom does power shift?  Do we wind up backing another mujaheddin and training another Bin Laden?

        On the other hand, how can we not act?  How can we abrogate the moral responsibility of responding to such a vile act?

        See?  Total loss of direction for me.  I hate all our options.  And for what it's worth, Obama read as extremely emotional about this -- as who wouldn't be? -- which may explain his first response, now tempered by time.

        Isn't it time for the US Govt to give Leonard Peltier back his freedom? ** "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

        by Yasuragi on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:50:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Over a million Syrian refugees are (0+ / 0-)

        now being harbored in border camps that desperately lack the means to feed, shelter, and treat them. The US should now substantially increase its aid to these camps. That would be far preferable to sending the rebels heavy weapons they could use in future blowback operations, or bombing Assad for loud shock and awe effect.

  •  I'd like to see congress take its role seriously. (13+ / 0-)

    IMO, the last thing congressmen want is to decide the issue, and the second to last thing is to go on record.  It's got to step up: no more calls for "consultation", just calls for the right to give or withhold permission.

    HEY COGNITIVE INFILTRATORS! I googled "confirmation bias" and Daily Kos raided my house! And and and smashed my hard drives! Ask CNN, it's all truthy!

    by Inland on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:35:45 AM PDT

    •  Congress could pass the buck to the UN (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Treetrunk

      Their argument could be that the UN Security Council is the correct forum to decide this issue.  Going to the UN has strong legal support and it leaves Congress blameless no matter what the UN does or does not do.

      Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 400ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

      by Zinman on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:24:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is really good news (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erratic, varii, 3goldens, akmk, greenbell, Treetrunk

    For those who trust Congress.

    (FTR, count me out of that group.)

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:35:48 AM PDT

  •  We have had false intel before. (7+ / 0-)

    I just don't trust any excuse for more war without a direct invasion of our own country.

    Russia's Vladimir Putin challenges US on Syria claims

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

  •  So many calls for this (7+ / 0-)

    action, here, on DK.  So did we just hear Obama renounce the Imperial Presidency? Should we celebrate for a few minutes?

  •  i so appreciate (13+ / 0-)

    his doing this. it's now on congress. and that means no "rotating villain" from democrats. no means no.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:36:40 AM PDT

    •  He'll get his vote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treetrunk, PorridgeGun

      When has Congress ever voted against a war? The House will demand that he bomb more, and bomb Iran while he's at it. Thirty or so Dems in the Senate will debate vigorously and then express their profound regret.

      Cynical? I can't imagine where that comes from...

      It's a sad day when we are staking our hopes on the rethugs hating Obama more than they love war!

      There's none so blind as those that will not see. --Jonathan Swift

      by chuckvw on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:58:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it will be two weeks or more later (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treetrunk

        That makes a huge difference.   People who support military strikes are well aware that it will make the situation worse but emotionally feel that they have to "do something."   Two weeks from now and it will be like talking about punishing Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915.

        Perhaps we can use the feeling that we have to do something to actually figure out what to do.   (Hint, handing out anti-air missiles to al Queda wannabes is probably not a net positive...)

  •  The smart way forward (23+ / 0-)

    Politically, legally and in every other way.

    If we are to take military action, it is good that everyone in Congress is nailed down to a vote.

    Maybe he does play chess :)

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:36:55 AM PDT

    •  Voice vote ruins that, though. I expect it. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, Treetrunk

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:08:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My real fear is this: (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        k9disc, highacidity, Treetrunk, LanceBoyle

        First, I am not at all convinced that military intervention is a good idea. Absent a clear objective, and a road map to achieving it, what is the point?

        Secondly, I have a genuine fear that if the President launched a strike without a vote, any vote, then the House wingnuts would have attempted to bring Impeachment proceedings.

        Bullshit or not, it would tie up the country in more division, and energised the fundy base of the GOP.

        It's a distraction we can manage without.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:12:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Naw. This is Tiddly Winks. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Treetrunk

      The old "apply pressure here, cause selected 'other' to leap there."

      Somebody probably told him 91% of Americans weren't buying the snake oil, and that congresscritters were beginning to weigh in. And maybe someone might have suggested, ever so gently, that there was a chance his "quick, down and dirty" afternoon bomb-job might not just kill more civilians and further complicate a civil war with well-hidden (and serious minority) "good guys" that we'd end up in another boots-on-the-ground quagmire.

      Notice he didn't request an early reconvening of congress, at least a quarum of those who want to be in on the gig.

      •  Or maybe... (0+ / 0-)

        ...it was Iran's announcement that it would launch a strike on Israel in 'retaliation' for our 'retaliation' against Assad.

        As Attack Looms, F.B.I. Sharpens Scrutiny of Syrians in U.S. for Signs of Retaliation

        The authorities’ fears were heightened on Tuesday when Iranian lawmakers and commanders said Iran would attack Israel in retaliation for any American strike against Syria.

        Mansur Haqiqatpur, an influential member of the Iranian Parliament, was quoted by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying, “In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime” — Iran’s derogatory term for Israel.

  •  Good. (12+ / 0-)

    Now either Congress authorizes it or does not...and there are votes on the record in the House and Senate.

    I may not be in favor of war, but at least it isn't one person making this decision, no matter how well-intentioned.

  •  He gave me every single thing I wanted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam AZ, Hawkjt, FiredUpInCA, Yasuragi
  •  Make the Republicans put their money where their (11+ / 0-)

    mouths are.

  •  Some thoughts... (19+ / 0-)

    Maybe some of the hysteria over Syria will die down a little bit now, on both the right and the left. Some additional thoughts:

    -So much for those salivating Tea Baggers' wet dream of hoping the president would take rash, unilateral military action so they could force their Republican puppets to put articles of impeachment on the table for allegedly violating his Constitutional authority. (Nyeah-nuyeah-nyeah-nyeah-neayh. Dream on if you think this president is going to give you the satisfaction...you can continue to go about trying to manufacture another bogus reason for impeachment.)

    -To my ears, these comments by the President regarding Syria were pitch perfect.

    -For those claiming that President Obama was just like President Bush when it comes to wanting to go to war, you were wrong. President Obama may still take military action, but this shows me that he doesn't exactly relish the idea, unlike President Bush, who virtually salivated for the opportunity to be a “war president” so he use that term for political purposes, including re-election. President Obama's approach to this is completely different from President Bush's “my way or the highway” approach.

  •  He should not go to war or aggression. (3+ / 0-)

    Him being a Democratic president doesn't excuse the wrongness of his actions. I will no more support him on this than I supported Lieberman on basically anything.

  •  I still don't get what Congress will be (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, 3goldens, k9disc, Treetrunk

    voting on.  A specific act or actions?  A plan of attack?  A policy?

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:38:02 AM PDT

  •  Not the right choice IMHO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k9disc, Treetrunk

    First off, he was in a now win on this and I think he got pulled into the bad side of bad.  Here is the narrative I am already hearing from my Fox loving peers:

    1 - "this guy will do anything to help the Muslim Brotherhood"

    2 - "no matter how easy it is, he cant act.  No leadership."

    3 - "If he doesnt get permission from congress its unconstitutional"

    4 - "He is just trying to deflect criticism from ___ (insert scandal)"

    5 - Benghazi

    I think he should have acted and told congress to STFU.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

    •  It's an interesting political dilemma. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treetrunk

      I actually like that he went to congress, although it puts him and a potentially violent response in the hands of politicians and US politics.

      Interesting situation.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:12:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And if he did as you've said he should... (6+ / 0-)

      You'd be hearing from your Fox loving peers that he should be impeached for going around Congress.  

      I couldn't care less the opinion of Fox News talking heads or their viewership.  

      “I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I have many more documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.” -G.Greenwald

      by Jacoby Jonze on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:39:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But will he abide by what Congress decides? (4+ / 0-)

    In Libya, he seemed to think that Congress was irrelevant.

  •  Obama's decision that action needs to be taken (6+ / 0-)

    is wrong and just because he wants to appear moderate and under control by taking this to congress doesn't mean much.

    i'm just amazed. truly. my mind is boggled.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:43:35 AM PDT

  •  Excellent decision President Obama (13+ / 0-)

    I've criticized the President for many things I think he'd done wrong, but when he makes a good -- a Constitutionally-validating -- decision, I'm going to acknowledge it and my appreciation for doing the right thing.

    I don't want offensive military engagement in Syria under current circumstances (without broad international support and without a better predictability of a positive outcome), but if the duly-elected Congress authorizes it, at least I can say the process was legal.

    Our elected representatives cannot be let off the hook. They must register on the record a vote to which each may be held accountable. That's the way it is supposed to work. Shine the light so there can be no hiding so they must defend their votes, yay or nay, before their constituents.

    This is a good day for democracy.

    I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

    by pajoly on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:43:53 AM PDT

  •  A lot of Republicans will vote against it (5+ / 0-)

    Just because Obama is the president. If a Republican was in office, they would be all for it.

    •  No doubt true. But a large percentage of... (11+ / 0-)

      ...progressive Democrats are against this, too. And I suspect that is a key reason that he has decided to take the path he has done today.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:54:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just adding that folks being publically against it (0+ / 0-)

        early on has probably helped to stall the "foregone conclusion" mindset...maybe.

        Dance lightly upon the Earth, Sing her songs with wild abandon, Smile upon all forms of Life ...and be well.

        by LinSea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:59:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Again with the Center vs the Poles. (0+ / 0-)

        This is to become the political standard, IMO.

        The Centrists vs the naive Left and the crazy Right.

        I think it's a stronger position for the Establishment. Wedge issues are going to be simple - how hard is it to cleave a Left / Right coalition?

        I've thought this was potentially Obama's MO since before 2008, and it worries me. His actions since have reinforced that idea.

        Interesting times...

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:17:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If a War has no Public Support in a democracy, (0+ / 0-)

        then it shouldnt be started. You cannot win a war that has no public support. This process is to find out how much public support can be gained for the maximum possible pressure on Assad.

        Lets do this, and lets find out. I am fine with Democracy. Win or lose, democracy comes up with the best answers time after time.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:02:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Logic trumps rhetoric. Whew! (7+ / 0-)

    I heard on NPR this AM that it will take the UN team two weeks to determine if/what CW was used.

    WaPo just released this

    More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says

    Yesterday, this report was released by a well respected journalist

    Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

    And this horror a couple of days ago

    Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'

    A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

    Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.

    Who was driving the fighter jet?

    What have we learned from history?

    Sectarian violence in countries doesn't seem to end even with intervention.  Iraqi die everyday from bombings etc.  Afghans are killing Iraqi police etc.

    We and others have sold tons of jets, arms, and military expertise to the countries in the Middle East all of whom have citizens from all sects.  

    Would it be more logical for us to support the countries whose best interest is the end of civil wars in their areas?

    According to this map, the Sunnis have inhabited the largest land mass

    Ethno-Religious Map of Syria

    Is Syria already a proxy war between different sects?

    I have no answers but fear how this can escalate.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46:02 AM PDT

  •  Lao Tzu: The first principle of war: (6+ / 0-)

    "All warfare is based on deception."

    I think all options remain open.  It makes no sense for the President to speak so openly about what he will or won't do.  At least it makes no sense to think it binds him to any given course of action.

    We don't know anything about the classified conference calls with Congress.  He may have his authorization already.  We don't know about contingency plans.  What we do know is Assad has already cleared out all targets and scattered his assets throughout Damascus.  

    Now he might well gather them up again, thinking the US won't do anything.

    "I speak the truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare, and I dare a little the more, as I grow older." --Montaigne

    by DrLori on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:48:06 AM PDT

  •  If it is proven that Bashar al-Assad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar

    ordered the Sarin strike

    three choices seem possible.

    One, Ignore

    Two, Kill Bashar

    Three, Dither.

    •  How about convincing his allies to desert him? (0+ / 0-)

      Then killing him.  

      The really horrific thing is that Bashir is the one Syrian whom it is illegal for the President to try to kill.   Some sort of law about not killing foreign leaders.  

      Seems kind if ass-backwards to me.

    •  Four, send the matter to the UN Security Council (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      That's where it belongs.

      Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 400ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

      by Zinman on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:37:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words, Do Nothing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PorridgeGun

        Russia and Probably China will veto any action against their client, Assad.

        You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

        by Sam I Am on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:53:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's doing the right thing (0+ / 0-)

          Attacking a country which has not attacked us is an abrogation of our responsibilities as a member of the UN, no matter how much we think it is justified.

          The President wisely referred the matter to Congress. After consideration, Congress will vote to do what they collectively think is right. Perhaps they will support military action, and perhaps they will oppose it. But, those are not the only two choices they have. Perhaps they will recommend sending the issue to the UN Security Council. Coincidentally, that means they won't have to take a hard vote which would be sure to enrage a large number of their constituents.

          As I have mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the UN is not limited to attacking or not attacking. They have many options. In Syria, there is a non-violent option, and that is involving Russia in working with Syria and the UN to locate and destroy their chemical weapons. I think Russia might entertain some such solution which gets rid of the chemical weapons in Syria without warfare. Syria is dependent on Russia and might judge getting rid of their chemical weapons peacefully to be a better deal than having their country's military getting blown to bits. They are engaged in a tough civil war and they might judge that taking a crippling blow to their military might cause them to lose the civil war. Giving up their chemical weapons would be the logical thing to do.

          Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 400ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

          by Zinman on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Huge "if" (3+ / 0-)

      That's the nub of the problem. There seems ample evidence, verified by neutral groups like Doctors Without Borders, that someone used a chemical agent such as sarin on civilians. But proving who did it? that's much more difficult, maybe impossible.

      You would think that people who are still arguing 50 years later about whether Lee Harvey Oswald had a co-conspirator (or was in the pay of either the Soviets or the Mafia or the Cubans or someone) would understand that facts establishing agency and responsibility are awfully hard to nail down.  My understanding is that the US is relying on "facts" provided by Israelis, hardly a neutral observer. And we know that in many previous go-arounds, from "Remember the Maine" to the Gulf of Tonkin to Iraq, the "absolutely certain facts" turned out to be nothing more than rumor and propaganda.

    •  The international courts. (0+ / 0-)

      He can be tried if there is evidence of his authorization.  For the USA to withold evidence it may have under the aegis of secrecy demeans the process.  Either we have the facts or we don't.

      If we don't we have no legal or moral authority to act.

  •  Resolution may not pass. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea, a2nite, k9disc, Orcas George

    Not only are there anti war Democrats, there are now Libertarian Republicans and Tea Party Republicans who will vote no because they don't want to spend the money and they do not see the US threatened by Syria.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:48:46 AM PDT

  •  Good job. Better if we go to the U.N. n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea, Zinman, Joieau, Treetrunk, rhutcheson
    •  That would be a waste of time (0+ / 0-)

      Since we already know the outcome.

      •  The UN might come up with a unique solution (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, TJ

        Really, we should not attack other nations who have not attacked us. In this situation, the UN is the very best venue to bring the issue.

        I know lots of pundits think Russia would veto the UN making war against Syria, but I think those pundits are making a mistake if they think war is the only thing the UN can do. For example, the UN might ask Russia to accompany UN representatives into Syria to collect and destroy their chemical weapons. Russia might be willing to do that to avoid a messy war while allowing them to be seen as the good guys while keeping their sizable presence in Syria.

        Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 400ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

        by Zinman on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:48:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Or international criminal court? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell

      that is, if we acknowledged that it exists and has legitimacy and jurisdiction.

      That's where the war crimes trials from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia have been adjudicated. If use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law, it should be adjudicated in a legal proceeding. You don't just go in and bomb something, anything, on suspicion.

  •  Ronald Reagan would favor attacking Syria (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Progressif

    Is there any doubt that Ronald Reagan would support a military attack on Syria?

    Any Republican who claims to be a follower of Ronald Reagan and who opposes military action is a fraud.

    •  Ronald Reagan's approach (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoyoteMarti, cdreid, Treetrunk

      was to pay other people to fight his wars. Remember Iran-Contra? The only thing he ever attacked was Greneda.

      •  How quickly we forget. He attacked Lebanon (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nailbanger, cdreid, PorridgeGun

        A young man named Osama Bin Laden was watching (or claims that he was.)

        http://pierretristam.com/...

        BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 8 - The United States battleship New Jersey bombarded Druse and Syrian gun batteries in Lebanon for more than nine hours today in the heaviest and most sustained American military action since the marines arrived here 16 months ago.

        The gunfire was directed at targets ''in Syrian-controlled Lebanon which have been firing on the city of Beirut,'' a Marine spokesman, Maj. Dennis Brooks, said. The shells fired into the capital had landed in Christian-dominated East Beirut, several miles from the Marine compound at Beirut International Airport.

        In Washington, the Pentagon said the destroyer Caron joined in the bombardment, firing more than 300 five-inch shells. It said the New Jersey fired more than 250 16-inch shells.

    •  Heck (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treetrunk

      He attacked Grenada for a lot less...

      Hey you, dont tell me theres no hope at all Together we stand, divided we fall.

      by marcvstraianvs on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:58:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That knife cuts both ways. (4+ / 0-)

      You mean to say that we Democrats are now supposed to be followers of Ronald Reagan?

      Yeah, I know, given Obama's attitude regarding Reagan, that's probably a silly question . . .

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You could have left out some of that last part. (0+ / 0-)

      "Any Republican who claims to be a follower of Ronald Reagan is a fraud."

      Much more like it, particularly after hte Teahadist takeover.

      "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

      by Australian2 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:17:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good on you President Obama! (0+ / 0-)

    I hope they wind up unable to come to a decision on this matter.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

  •  Inside baseball: Now that's smart politics. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk, Yasuragi

    It puts Congress on the hook, regardless of which way they vote. And, as the President says, in as many words: My hands are free, no matter what Congress says.

    The only counter play would be the House (or Senate, or both) refusing to hold a vote at all - to refuse to share the credit/blame for a hypothetical attack on Syria. But that would invite derision from pundits and public alike.

  •  It's about time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    It's about time, Obama has wised up, and found an easy way out of a potential major screw up.

    The US is not the policeman of the world, and wasting millions of dollars on an unwinnable war, with no good outcome, will not be tolerated, especially while millions of Americans suffer and bear the cost of such folly.

    Maybe now president Obama will do the job we VOTED, him into office to perform, and that is to worry about the American people first, and everyone else second.

    MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA IS NOT THE ANSWER. NO GOOD CAN COME FROM IT.

    I just hope Congress agrees.

    The future is just a concept we use to avoid living today

    by MetalMD on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:53:53 AM PDT

  •  credit where credit is due (8+ / 0-)

    I've had my fair share of criticisms of this pres. but he did the right thing in going to Congress. I'm not confident that Congress will do the right thing, their track record is nothing to brag about, but this is a small step back from the imperial presidency and I applaud him for it.

  •  What an ironic twist of fate it will be (5+ / 0-)

    to possibly see john kerry, anti-war veteran, testifying to congress ala colin powell as to exactly why we need to take military action now.

    I am withholding final judgement until i hear all the debated testimony, however i am very very pleased that the potus is taking this to congress.  I pray that we see our way through doing the right thing here.  I admit to hoping that the right thing is not another war.

    I feel so very heartbroken for the syrian people.  How on earth can this ever come out with a good ending for all?

    The cynic in me wishes that we could have full transparency of all the horse trading that is occurring right now between the mic lobbyists and our governing leaders.

    "Racism doesn't have a geography, it only lives in the human heart." anotherdemocrat 7/15/13

    by politik on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:56:41 AM PDT

  •  Ok, here's what I think happened: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk, PorridgeGun

    Last week someone in the intel community spun John Kerry up about the Syrian gas attack and Kerry spun Obama up. They started making statements (reckless in my opinion) about Red Lines Crossed, et cetera. Cameron and Hollande were also spun up, possibly by the same sources (Israelis? That was at least one rumor). But there is/was still a level of uncertainty and since the UN was in there investigating, the execution date was not fixed. The UNSC perm5 meeting ended abruptly with Russia saying, no facts available, must wait. The British Parliament, in response to overwhelming public opinion, stopped Cameron in his tracks. He called Obama and told him that Britain was out.
    So Obama is out on the limb, all by himself with shaky "evidence" and no ladder.
    Well, this is his ladder: Wait until 9/9 when Congress comes back and "lose" a vote.
    Then, he'd have a righteous reason to back off, he'd still look "tough" on foreign policy while clearly bending the knee to the will of the people and the rule of law.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:57:22 AM PDT

  •  Disappointed in Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    Wow! As a quiet political observer and long time admirer of president Obama, I can tell you this is the biggest mistake of his presidency thus far. I don't know who are the people on his new national security team, but they certainly do not reflect the spirit of the democratic pary and the core of the original Obama base.
    This can instantly turn the Republican Party into a more tolerable party, if they lead the opposition to this.
    Stay tuned!

  •  I wonder if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Orcas George, Treetrunk

    no matter what Obama says, he privately hopes Congress does vote down intervention.  

  •  Time to put the pressure on congress (7+ / 0-)

    I just reached out to my congressman and let him know in no uncertain terms that if he votes to authorize this action I will not be voting for him again in 2014. I didn't support Hillary Clinton in 2008 because of her war vote and I won't support anyone else who thinks this is something we should do.

  •  My problem with this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    ...is that this situation reads like the president is saying, "I'll be ordering the armed forces into battle in a few days. While I'm waiting to do so, I'd like to give Congress a chance to express their approval."

    That doesn't really seem like a checks-and-balances situation, but more like giving Congress a chance to put their fingerprints on a fait accompli.

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell

    by mftalbot on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:02:37 PM PDT

  •  Louie Gohmert and Michele Backman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    get to determine if we bomb Syria?  We are so screwed.

    Republicans - they measure our national success by corporate profit margin, not the well being of the citizens.

    by egarratt on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:02:51 PM PDT

  •  Hypocrites (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    Suddenly we're concerned about children?  What about the chemicals we feed our own children in the form of genetically modified crops and antibiotic-laden meant?

    And those kids at least have food even if it's not good food.  

    Granted the effects are not as immediate as a gas attack, but they lead to cancer and type 2 diabetes just the same.  

    I by no means condone anyone using any kind of warfare, but we don't have moral authority anymore.  

  •  Congress is where good things go to DIE! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk

    I don't ever remember hearing him quoted as saying that he "wouldn't" bring this to Congress. It's just about "when" you talk to Congress. It's after you make your decision as POTUS that you go to Congress, not before.

    Congress is where discussions go to DIE. Asking them to discuss or debate something in their present state is just asking for them to grandstand for the next three months doing nothing. But that's what they do best.. nothing. But putting it to a vote after you propose your action then they best get you a response in a few days.

    I wonder how they will vote?
    - Yes, just because they WANT him to get into a mess in the Middle East.
    or...
    - No, just to be contrary to everything proposed by this President.

    It would be nice if they actually made a decision for the good of the People for a change instead of politics.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:53 PM PDT

  •  This is the Greatest Victory for Democracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treetrunk, Boris49

    I still need him to say.. Congress must Declare War, because if it were Senator Obama, he would have said that, in fact he DID say that.

    Now,  we must struggle to make the process work. We will have a MUCH better, more informed and less totalitarian/ authoritarian decision than if he just went alone. The world may start to believe we are a democracy again, and not some tinpan overgrown Banana Republic which ignores its own charter laws with impunity.

    YESSSSS!

    This also shows that the single most damaging law to foreign and domestic politics on the books in America, the War Powers Act, is not always used, in fact should be RARELY OR NEVER USED. He must ask Congress to debate and declare war, or any action is grounds for impeachment. The next President will have to justify any of his actions in LIGHT of this decision. This weakens the War Powers Act, and we may be able to get it extinguished now.

    Excellent job, Mr. President. You are on the side of the angels, and Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt on this day today. Lets make it a roll, not a point in space.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:07:39 PM PDT

  •  Let's lower the rhetoric to a simmer shall we? (8+ / 0-)

    Tossing inflammatory rhetoric around doesn't do anyone at DKos any good. Discuss and debate is fine. But tossing insults saying the President is Lying is a bit disingenuous.

    Facts are what we need and they are mighty thin right now. We all agree about that. But inserting our own assumptions as fact are not helping things. Cooler heads are needed right now so we can save lives. Our own soldiers and those civilians being killed are on the line. Giving in to our own base instincts here confuses the issue. Some of us are against all war no matter the reason. Some of us are tired of war, death and the cost it brings. And some of us die a little inside when they here about innocents being killed over there while we sit around comfortably. We are all right and all wrong at the same time.

    Let's just talk.. shall we?

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:15:04 PM PDT

  •  how many votes (0+ / 0-)

    will it take in the house and senate to stop or authorize a strike?

  •  that is a step in right direction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LLPete, LinSea

    now we need to make our case that this attack will not help, can lead to a larger conflict that we can not afford.

    we should investigate other options.  embargo, helping the rebels more, etc...

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Politics of the moment aside.... (7+ / 0-)

    Much will be made in the coming hours and days over the politics of asking Congress for authorization for use of force against Syria. (Let's call it for what it would be: An act of war.) We will see nauseating positioning, maneuvering, and weaseling from Congress critters, their surrogates, patrons, and retainers. Listen and watch if you have the stomach for it. And Obama might be up to his eyeballs in political calculation here too, but it is a happy coincidence when upholding democratic process aligns with political expediency.

    Because another reality could be that this President is taking one small step, maybe reluctantly, in changing the process in how this country uses military force in the world. If the American people start to think that it is the right and expected thing to do to demand that Congress sanction an act of war before it is perpetrated, that would be a good thing. If we can get past the idea that one man can launch the might of this country and its people to kill and die on his own say-so, who knows where it could lead? Maybe we finally stop using the poison of "American exceptionalism" to sanction war in violation of international law.

    If progressives were voting for policies they believe in, they would be voting for Dr. Jill Stein.

    by Wahrheit on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:23:31 PM PDT

  •  "The team's job was not to determine who .. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yasuragi

    ..launched the attack."

    The next question that congress should developis  a plan to address this too imo.

    And if Assad is determined to be responsible for CW use, will a US bombing campaign really stop Assad from future gassing of people?  

    This is what congress should work out; Before a bombing campaign , however short, is begun
    ..........................
    This:

    ..But in an unexpected move, he said that Congress should debate the matter and vote on it,..
    ..is very good news imo
    ....................................

    Also too (not that most republicans are likely to offer anything of much substance): republicans will have to juggle their irrational hatred of this administration with their irrational chickenhawkishness. That will be interesting too

  •  President Obama Speaks on Syria (8+ / 0-)


    President Obama speaks on the situation in Syria from the White House Rose Garden. August 31, 2013.
    http://www.youtube.com/...
  •  Brilliant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Eric Nelson

    Now he can wait as long as he likes, the Congress is incapable of agreeing on anything and the last thing they actually wanted was for him to give them a say.

    What they really wanted was for him to act, and then piss and moan about what he did and how he cut them out of the loop for the rest of his term

    Until inauguration day The USA is in the greatest danger it has ever experienced.

    by Deep Dark on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:47:24 PM PDT

  •  Leaving it to Congress not only the right thing to (4+ / 0-)

    do but a master stroke.

    Now all we have to do is wait for Rush Limbaugh to decide, after all if Congress is afraid of Rush then Rush has become Congress.

    •  A masterstroke would be not bombing Syria (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      Being anti-war doesn't end because a Democrat proposes aggression.

      •  I trust Obama to use the exact tactic required by (5+ / 0-)

        the situation. As he did with Osama bin Laden, as he did with Libya, as he did with North Korea.

        I am still patting myself on the back for hiring that guy and he wasn't even my first choice.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clearly you don't pay attention to Libya. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          OBL was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and a mistake not taking him captive.  North Korea was never much of a situation to begin with.

          I voted for the man twice and I am not going to carry his water. Let the other party act that way for its leaders.

          •  These things are always best in hindsight. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi

            And I am saying that in each situation the exact tool was used for a satisfactory resolution. Not Rainbows and banjos. But satisfactory.

            Obama was not my first choice for the job. I did hire him. And he is doing a stellar job. I am happy. I don't micromanage employees during their contract.

            So Obama didn't re-make the world into Eden. But you know what, there is no such thing as gravity, the world sucks. And no President is going to change that fact.

            give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

            by 88kathy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:19:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Non-aggression is usually best in hind + foresight (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib
              And I am saying that in each situation the exact tool was used for a satisfactory resolution. Not Rainbows and banjos. But satisfactory.
              Just because you don't pay attention so Libya doesn't mean it's satisfactory. It just mean you're playing party politics with the future of nation. I reject it from you as much as I reject it from any GOPer.
              Obama was not my first choice for the job. I did hire him. And he is doing a stellar job. I am happy. I don't micromanage employees during their contract.
              Flippantly referring to violence, death, and chaos as if it were merely a matter of a 9-5 job shows the depth of your depravity.
              So Obama didn't re-make the world into Eden. But you know what, there is no such thing as gravity, the world sucks. And no President is going to change that fact.
              War is wrong. Aggression is wrong. There is literally no place in the middle east that we need to be. It is a disgusting attitude to basically go "oh well" and use the same fallacies as right wingers to justify relentless warfare. You don't belong on the site. You belong on Red State.
          •  You'd prefer OBL still be alive????? (0+ / 0-)

            Can I take you to FDNY HQ to show the memorial plaques for the 343 uniformed FDNY members who died on 9/11/2001? Or introduce you to thousands of other people who lost family members that day?

    •  It would be a masterstroke if it wasn't so obvious (0+ / 0-)

      I'm tired of 11-dimensional chess.  Let's start relying on the Constitution.

      •  Relax. Things will be fine. Obama is the best (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yasuragi, charliehall2

        man on the planet for the hardest job on the planet. But how is it so many anonymous internet posters are smarter than him?

        That is the twilight dimension checkers.

        And I'm not even talking about those who just came from a ditch on the New Jersey Turnpike.(See Being John Malkovich)

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:26:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One thumb up and one down for Mr. Obama. (0+ / 0-)

    There were two things I was concerned about here, the Constitutional balance of powers and the expansion of our Empire into another country which we would have to eventually abandon, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    At least President Obama is setting a precedent here for a return to Congressional approval for conflicts. I realize that Bush did the same thing, and Congress rubber stamped his war. Perhaps one day we will return to Congress declaring war as was intended by the Founders and the Constitution. (Even though they will probably do what Whoever President tells them to vote).

    While we will continue to be the G.S. in the eyes of the Islamic world because of this aerial invasion of Syria, and will increase the recruitment of new terrorists to worldwide terror groups, until another 9-11 seals us back into another war with boots on the ground, at least we are making an arc back towards our Constitutional roots.

    The Constitution could be our greatest contribution to the world if we implement it.

    •  This theory makes no sense: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter, Yasuragi
      While we will continue to be the G.S. in the eyes of the Islamic world because of this aerial invasion of Syria, and will increase the recruitment of new terrorists to worldwide terror groups
      Sunni islamic groups actually are going to be pissed if we don't do anything when Sunni children are being killed by an Alawite-dominated regime.

      And since the vast majority of the Islamic world is Sunni....

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:09:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh Yay! I feel much better knowing that Congress (0+ / 0-)

    will now have a say....considering that half of our Congress is loonie tunes on their best days.  

    This is getting to be a worse nightmare by the hour and I am not pleased at all.

  •  I told my wife this yesterday and I reiterate: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem, Yasuragi

    this is Sandy Hook writ large.

    Obama was outraged about the children then, and that became the rationale for gun control.

    Obama is outraged about the children now, and this is the rationale for striking Assad's regime.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:02:11 PM PDT

  •  Kerry pretty clear about justifying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    canyonrat

    immediate action. Yet he himself is also clear that Cuba remain on the list of states who sponsor terrorism WITHOUT any legitimate current proof to that matter whatsoever. When the majority of Cuban exiles rallied to point out that the prison escapee, terrorist Posada Carriles wanted by justice authorities in Cuba, fugitive in Venezuela and El Salvador, and illegal in the United States holds fund raisers in Miami for the small right-wing fringe remants of violant anti-Castro militants who have elevated this murderer of children -- Cuban children (Cubana Flight 455 bombing) -- to hero status.

    Well, Kerry has not convinced me about justifying action in Syria. Not after signing on with the minority fringe exile right-wing Cuban's stance on keeping Cuba in embargo and listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Credibility problem, he has.

    A good horse is never a bad color.

    by CcVenussPromise on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:15:40 PM PDT

  •  Glad to hear it (0+ / 0-)

    The President made the right move here.

  •  Now we need the Progessive Caucus (0+ / 0-)

    to stand up and say no to this latest iteration of US military adventurism.

    Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

    by rhutcheson on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:05:20 PM PDT

  •  What the hell? (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's sudden militarism is so very disappointing. Has he had a psychotic break?

  •  I believe Obama knows he's stepped in it, (0+ / 0-)

    and want's Congress to bail him out because he knows they'll vote no on military action.

  •  Introspective (0+ / 0-)

       The repukes lost the first round.
        Cognition on.

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:38:09 PM PDT

  •  James Madison (0+ / 0-)

    thought that a President could invade another country without congressional approval. At least, he did just that in 1810 when he ordered an invasion of Spanish Florida without congressional approval.

    That said, I'm glad that Obama is seeking congressional approval and were I a congressman I would vote "yes". The evidence is too overwhelming that Assad gassed lots of people and he will continue to do so if not stopped.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site