Skip to main content

Bob Gates backs Syria strike http://t.co/...
@blakehounshell
NY Times:
The 10-to-7 vote in the Foreign Relations Committee sets up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should be given the authority to strike Syria.
Don't bet against Presidents getting what they want. Setting aside for a moment the wisdom—or lack of it—of a Syrian strike, attempts to defeat Obama just because he is Obama will likely fail as they always fail. The tea party never learns anything, so look for the same outcome as always: an embarrassing display of inability to govern.

Julie Bykowicz:

Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons.

Opponents of U.S. military intervention in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern country include Occupy Wall Street, which protests against Wall Street profits; Code Pink, an antiwar group; and the Russians.

More politics and policy below the fold.

NY Times on the Fed chair decision:

And Mr. Obama still does have Mr. Summers in mind, associates say.

“It’s like the attachment you feel for your heart surgeon after he performs a quadruple bypass,” said a former administration official, who like most others did not want to be identified speaking of such a sensitive personnel matter.

But as that Oval Office meeting last year also suggests, Mr. Obama’s one concern about nominating Mr. Summers has been the potential for a Senate battle — not only from Republicans spoiling for fights, but also from liberal Democrats who view Mr. Summers as too friendly toward deregulating big banks when he was Treasury secretary late in the Clinton administration.

That concern about confirmation has been affirmed in recent weeks as bloggers and groups on the left have mobilized, either to oppose Mr. Summers outright or to urge Mr. Obama to pick Ms. Yellen to be the first female Fed chairman. Mr. Summers declined to comment for this article.

Bloggers? Could that be us?

Charles M. Blow:

This is a particularly bad time to sell the American people a war, and make no mistake: we are being sold, and this “military action,” in another time and place — and in some quarters, here and now — would be called an act of war.

Americans are not only weary of war, they’re weary of the politicians who commit us to it.

EJ Dionne:
The debate over Syria is a jumble of metaphors, proof that every discussion of military action involves an argument about the last war. Yet beneath the surface, the fight in Congress over President Obama’s proposed strike against Bashar al-Assad’s regime is a struggle to break free from earlier syndromes to set a new course.

Obama himself is using the imperative that he back up his “red line” against chemical weapons as an occasion to revisit his Syrian strategy. And both of our political parties are emerging from a post-9/11 period of frozen foreign policy thinking to a more natural and intellectually honest exchange over America’s long-term role in the world.

Make no mistake. Whatever the complexities of the discussion, it's a damn sight better than a noun, a verb, and 9/11.

NY Times:

Another complicating factor for the president and his allies on Capitol Hill is that as Congress has lost many of its moderate voices and become more politically polarized, Democrats in the House and the Senate have become a more liberal group.

In the Senate, this was evident on Wednesday as two liberals who cast votes that would have curtailed American engagement in Iraq when they were members of the House — Tom Udall of New Mexico and Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut — voted no on the use-of-force resolution.

Newer senators like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the most reliably liberal members, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who as a House member also opposed the wars, will also be tough targets for the president.

Hi, my name is "complicating factor". Pleased to meet you.
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

  •  Bah "both sides" bologna (13+ / 0-)
    Democrats in the House and the Senate have become a more liberal group.
    If only!

    To tweet or not to tweet. I tweet therefore I am.

    by RadicalParrot on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:35:31 AM PDT

    •  it's true, though (19+ / 0-)

      we used to have Joe Lieberman.

      Earlier today, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I voted against authorizing the use of military force in Syria.

      The resolution passed 10 to 7, and now moves on to deliberation and a final vote before the full U.S. Senate.

      As promised, I wanted to send you a message once I made up my mind, along with information about how I came to this difficult conclusion.

      First of all, the president's decision to come to Congress was the right one, and I appreciate the great thought and consideration that the Administration has given to our nation's response to the crisis in Syria.

      Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against the people of Syria is a human rights atrocity and a blatant violation of international law. It's impossible to see the horrific images of death and suffering in Syria and not feel compelled to act in some way. But there is not always an American solution to every international crisis. For me, today's vote was a close call, but in the end, I voted no because I believe that downside risks of military action, both for U.S. interests and the Syrian people, outweigh the potential benefits.

      In the short-term, there is little chance that targeted air strikes will destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, and may simply prompt another deadly reaction from Assad as well as the countries that finance his murderous regime. In the long-term, I worry that today's authorization, which combines authorization for a military strike with support for the lethal arming of the opposition, will involve us in the Syrian conflict in a way that will be difficult to untangle.

      Our focus should be on increasing humanitarian aid to the millions of innocent Syrians suffering at the hands of Assad, as well as on concerted diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on the regime.

      Thanks for being a part of this conversation.

      Chris Murphy

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forgot a set of quotes (0+ / 0-)

      1st instance: "both sides"
      2nd instance: "liberal"

  •  Fractures and fissures (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Floande, koNko, greenbell

    I am watching the house republicans and listening to RW radio.  Consistently against the Authorization.  It seems progressive dems and the Congressional Black Caucus are against it (all for different reasons, but still).

    Politico reports that AIPAC has been lobbying openly for the Authorization.

    Old dynamics are breaking down and new ones emerging.

  •  anyone else uncomfortable with this ? (9+ / 0-)
    Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

    “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

    Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

    “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,”  

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Presumably Kerry is referring to Saudi and Qatar - who have financed the effective fighting component of the rebels in Syria consisting of Jihadi mercenaries with links to Al Qaeda.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:52:52 AM PDT

  •  In the long term, I'm glad to see that this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Floande, Stude Dude

    bad idea is getting some pushback, even if some of those who oppose it are usually on the opposite sides of every issue from progressives.  In the end, if it gets scuttled (thought I'm not hopeful) it will be for the best.

    Interesting that Sheldon Adelson is against intervention.  I would have thought he'd line up with AIPAC.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:55:57 AM PDT

  •  Western moral authority on use of chemical weapons (0+ / 0-)

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ☮ ♥ ☺

    by lotlizard on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 04:56:23 AM PDT

  •  Adelson connection disheartening (4+ / 0-)

    I have suspected that the pressure on the White House to "do something, no matter how stupid" is coming from the Israel lobby, with the real target being Iran. But that's been hard to sleuth out. If Adelson has gotten his ear (and Kerry's), that would explain a lot. What it doesn't explain is why Obama is suddenly listening to and kowtowing to them, rather than all the other people one might listen to.

  •  I guess the NYT has figured out the Tea Party (0+ / 0-)

    That quote is really funny; the reality not so much.

  •  Howard Dean says "Yea" to military action. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aaraujo

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

    Though he doesn't think the resolution will pass.

    •  So? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, koNko, wintergreen8694

      Why are Obama, Ms. Clinton, Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Boenher, Canter, and the media so gung ho in pushing an unpopular war?

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:30:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because they think it's the right thing to do? (8+ / 0-)

        there's room for disagreement here. No one has made a case for it being the smart thing to do, but I can understand the idea that if someone uses chemical weapons, we need to "do something".

        I just want it to be a smart, effective something.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:38:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I find this rationale unpersuasive: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude
          I can understand the idea that if someone uses chemical weapons, we need to "do something"
          Why should this necessarily be the case?  As others have pointed out, Assad has killed countless thousands of Syrians using conventional weapons, yet no one suggested that those deaths required intervention.  Is the point here the slaughter of civilians or the method by which they are slaughtered?  

          Moreover, this whole "we must enforce international norms" argument suffers from a certain logical inconsistency.  The administration claims we have to enforce compliance with an international convention banning the use of chemical weapons, but then in the same breath says we don't need the international community's support to do it.  So we're going to enforce international law while ignoring the U.N.  

          Finally, are we really in a position to make this kind of argument with a straight face?  We've just seen it confirmed that the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran back in the 1980s.  Our own forces appear to have used depleted uranium and white phosphorus against the citizens of Fallujah during the Iraq war.  

          I acknowledge the issue is hardly free from doubt, but this "do something" idea seems to be a very questionable justification in the circumstances.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:47:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hardly (0+ / 0-)

            chemical weapons are barbaric and international norms apply.

            The trick is in making sure the "something" one does actually helps. Diffucult, that.

            But to question that motive? Nonsense.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

            by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nonsense? (0+ / 0-)

              You seem to have misread my comment.  No one quarrels with the notion that the use of chemical weapons is barbaric.  The question is why we're suddenly so concerned with international norms.

              International conventions are violated all the time, yet we don't seem to think it necessary to take military action in all such instances.  And as I pointed out, our country hasn't been a paragon of virtue on this front.  This country is famous for demanding that others comply with international law, even as we flout it.

              It's also more than a little ironic to insist on compliance with international norms while one proceeds to ignore the U.N., the international forum for dealing with this kind of issue.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 03:04:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FogCityJohn

                I did misread your comment, and my apologies.

                It's true that the world isn't pure, but this instance in terms of size and scope is something we have not seen in decades.

                The UN is useless so long as either China or Russia choose to make it so. That's doesn't surprise or bother me.

                Don't get me wrong, I oppose an open ended plan with no strategic underpinning. Making things worse doesn't sit well.

                My view is one needs to be careful despite the reasonable impetus to act, rather than say there's no persuasive rationale to act, when there is.

                "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

                by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:12:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There's a wrong but no remedy. (0+ / 0-)

                  At least that's how I see it.  There's no question that what's happening is wrong.  Our problem is the arrogant assumption that our military power will fix it.  It won't, and after all these years, we should have learned that.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:08:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe they think it's the right thing? (6+ / 0-)

        I assume they're not all bowing to political calculation.

        (I know that's a minority opinion here.)

  •  Something smells here. (4+ / 0-)

    As much as I would like to see the Al-Asad's government come to an end, I really hope the president gets the absoute proof that the chemical attack was done by the government. Something just doesn't seem right with this. There are factions that would love to see us topple the government so they can move right in. And I think it's a real bad faction of the movement that actually did this. These are the type that will kill anyone for their cause. I hope we are not as trigger happy as the last president was and refuse to pay attention to the truth, as this can get real messy and real bad.

  •  Hoping... (3+ / 0-)

    ... for a coalition of insane Tea Partiers who hate whatever the President does and truly progressive antiwar Dems to defeat the authorization, and to at least defund, if not more, if Obama goes ahead without authorization. Btw, I suspect this is all kabuki, and that it's a done deal.

    Also btw--Sheldon Adelson is FOR intervention.

  •  take down of Nick Kristoff column in NYT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whizdom

    by a reader

    annotated comments on the pro war column by Nick

    fun to read

    https://docs.google.com/...

  •  I'm supporting military action (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, Leo Flinnwood, singe, Orinoco

    why?  Because, if you have the ability to confront a wrong, it your morale authority to do so.

    The perfect example was the 2011 Libya military action.  That was correct because Qadafi was actively slaughtering civilians without reprecussions.

    The 2003 Iraq War was a mistake because Iraq was already degraded by the 1991 Gulf War and there was an active No-Fly Zone enforced over it with routine airstrikes.  Saddam was contained.

    •  And I am against it (0+ / 0-)

      because I don't think we actually have the ability to confront this particular wrong. At least, not if 'confront' means 'do something effective to prevent it in the future.'

      We are obviously not going to directly attack chemical weapon supply bunkers in Syria, that would risk unleashing those chemicals on the local civilian population. So far, what I've heard about is a strike against the command and control of those munitions, and the specialized units that actually carried out the attacks. As 'punishment.'

      But what happens if we 'take out' Syrian chemical weapon command and control, which includes Syrian troops trained to secure, handle and deploy the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons? We destroy, or degrade, Assad's ability to secure and control those weapons.

      Those weapons are sitting in the middle of a civil war, and many of the rebel groups have active ties to terrorist groups, real terrorist groups, not just labeled that way because they aren't friendly to US interests. If Assad loses control of them, they aren't just going to sit there in their bunkers waiting for an orderly transition of power to whomever assumes the reins after Assad is gone. Recall the looting of Saddam's weapon's bunkers after we invaded Iraq, and that time we actually did have American boots on the ground.

      The risk that groups with plots and plans inimical to US interests get their hands on those weapons rises exponentially if we strike against the people who are currently in charge of them. Do we also expect that we can hire enough rebel mercenaries to protect these weapons for us, since we have ruled out sending in the Marines or the Seals to do it? Even if we can find the people, can we trust them?

      A 'limited' strike designed to punish Assad's army for using chemical weapons seems to open a Pandora's box we will not be able to close. And the stuff in that box will eventually come round to harm us directly.

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Orinoco on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:27:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, this is going to pass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland

    with a weird coalition of GOP and Dem war profiteers, Republicans who think this is going to be bad for Obama politically, and Dems who are afraid of being drawn as "soft on defense" in the next election.  There might also be a small number (very small) of Dems who vote yes on conscience.  

    The vote will be tight.  It will be tight in the House, because House GOP is so reflexively opposed to anything Obama is for.  It will be tight in the Senate, because it's going to take at least a third of the Dem caucus to pass this (if not more), and that's scraping the bottom of the remaining neocon Conservadems after 2010 and 2012.  At least a third of the Dems in the Senate are reflexively anti-war, as is at least half of the Dem caucus in the House.

    But, this will pass.  There are enough Republicans that fit into the first two categories of my coalition outlined in the first paragraph to pass it, and the Dems know that if it fails, it will be the equivalent of cutting off Obama's balls.  Obama has REALLY gone to bat for this, and Dems aren't going to deal their president a humiliating and emasculating defeat on this issue.

    •  10-7-1 is less than 60% (0+ / 0-)

      I am not sure Obama will need 60 senators to bring it to a vote given McConnell support, but it will be even closer in the House. But ultimately I think there will be enough House Republicans who are worried a no vote would tie the hands of a Republican president, if one were ever to get elected.

      “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

      by se portland on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:56:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What would be our mission? (4+ / 0-)

    If we manage to unseat Assad, what do we get? Nobody really knows. Almost certainly another dictatorship. Better? Worse?

    If we fail to unseat Assad, we get to play the role of paper tigers, unable to deal effectively with a third world tyrant.

    Sending in cruise missiles and air power commits us to -- what? Suppose the sarin attacks continue? How certain are we that we can bring about the desired result? For that matter, what is the desired result?

    Having rattled our sabers, we will look foolish and impotent when that doesn't, er, secure the desired result, whatever that might be.

    It would seem that the tactic of drawing red lines ought to be employed only when the stakes are so high that are willing to go "all in" if those lines are crossed. Are we?

    ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

    by Tim DeLaney on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:27:16 AM PDT

    •  Excellent set of questions, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, Tim DeLaney

      all of which need to be addressed fully before any decision is made.

    •  Even when we went 'all in' in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tim DeLaney

      terrorist organizations and anti-American insurgents managed to get a hold of massive quantities of explosives and munitions, looted from Saddam's liberated ammo bunkers.

      Military solutions generally don't work in the long run. If they did, we wouldn't have war any more, because we have been trying military solutions for thousands of years. We need to think outside that particular box.

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Orinoco on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:35:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican hypocrisy... (3+ / 0-)

    brings it's own version of depravity and stupidity to the situation: they will do or say anything to insure that this particular President is somehow "defeated."  The Inhofe factor is a greater threat to American democracy than raining death on people far away: would you not feel compelled to vote yes for this folly, this awful decision because Republicans are a far more tangible danger to our democracy?  What's painful and sad is that is actually the case.

    •  excellent comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare

      and an accurate summation of the status quo

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:44:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tournesol

        In the end, Dems will have to make sure this passes - Dems that everybody on this site voted for.  Dems.

        Because, if this doesn't pass, Obama starts to take on a Jimmy Carter persona - incompetent on economic growth, and incapable of leading on foreign affairs (though, to be fair to Carter, he did pass Camp David Accords, before those helicopters crashed in the Iranian desert).

        Dems HAVE to support this, otherwise, the GOP gets a big, emasculating "win" against Obama, and he looks very weak.

        And, this is a really dumb decision.  With the exception of Reagan in the 1980's, every war of choice by an American president since WWII, has turned out badly politically for that president.  Korea wasn't a war of choice, and Afganistan was a direct response to the Taliban, who propped up Osama, and made 911 possible.  Nearly all of the other actions turned out badly.    

        •  not Jimmy carter, not close to it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wintergreen8694, Wee Mama

          1.

          And all Obama's talking about is Syria MT @Reuters: U.S. jobless claims fall; 4 week average at pre-recession level http://t.co/...
          @GlennThrush
          2. Osama bin Laden

          3. reelected

          Just not a parallel, though it is the hope of the GOP. But, and do note this, they get a tremendous amount wrong.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:08:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I remember the "wag the dog" charges... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, Wee Mama

      .....against Clinton over Kosovo.

      "We're not the world's 9-1-1" is another quote that comes to mind from that era.

      I think it's just the way they roll when a Dem is in the White House.

  •  It's deja vu all over again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    How is it that we can bomb and kill at will in Iraq and Afghanistan using drones which often results in collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties and that's just fine?  I blame the Bush era regime for perpetuating perpetual war as the new normal but doubly blame the Obama administration for now furthering and expanding on those aims.  When you have to pull out your fists, you've lost the argument.

  •  Gregg -- You would run afoul of Carl Sagan's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    bullshit detector.  He did a great write-up of it in Demon-Haunted World using as example a neighbor who claims to have a dragon in the garage.

    There are iterations:

    Q -"I don't see a dragon"
    A - "It's invisible"

    Q - "I don't see any footprints"
    A - "He's very light on his feet"

    Etc, etc.

    The gist of it is that, in true conspiracy theorist fashion, you can never disprove the assertion.  Assertions that cannot be disproved are likely bullshit.

    Now we see a vote on the Question of Syria, and somehow, the mythical "Tea Party" folks (remember there is not actual Tea Party) prove their incompetence and Obama hatred by -- voting against it? When most folks right here on this very site would vote against it? When voting against would be the right thing to do? And, might I add, when more than a few Republicans are doing the wrong thing by siding with the President?

    Sounds like there is no possible way for your mythical TP types to do the right thing.

    Helluva dragon you've got there.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:14:15 AM PDT

    •  one G in Greg (0+ / 0-)

      and what are you talking about? Nothing coherent.

      The situation as described is not only real, it complicates life for Boehner every day. Ted Cruz is no purple dragon. He pushes Marco Rubio to the insane side every day from now to the primaries.

      And if you need more, just watch Kerry's testimony in the House (not for anything Kerry said) to see BENGHAZI!!!! as the question point.

      You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand not to see it. Oh, wait...

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:18:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Methinks you doth protest too much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        You proffered this:

        Setting aside for a moment the wisdom—or lack of it—of a Syrian strike, attempts to defeat Obama just because he is Obama will likely fail as they always fail. The tea party never learns anything, so look for the same outcome as always: an embarrassing display of inability to govern.
        Which is equivalent to "The dragon is invisible".

        CT logic, or, if you prefer a more reputable term, a fine example of the propagandist's craft.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:35:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  heh (0+ / 0-)

          you can ignore what I just said (BENGHAZI!!!!!!) but it doesn't change the fact that you're demonstrably wrong.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:30:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm demonstrably wrong? (0+ / 0-)

            Taking a position that the Tea Party can do no right even when it does the same thing as others who are doing right seems to fit in very well with that invisible dragon.

            Oh -- wait -- no!

            Sure, it creates a logical problem, until you consider the possibility that we actually co-exist with the Bizarro planet and that, without delineating times and occurrences, no can mean yes  and yes can mean no.

            Yeah. That's the ticket.

            And have you met my wife, Elizabeth Taylor?
            The still-breathing, young Elizabeth Taylor?

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:40:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I apologize for the mis-spelling. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        I was communicating earlier with another Gregg -- the two-g variety.  Clearly less efficient than your minimalist 1-g Greg.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:37:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  minimalist is good ! ;-) n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:29:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Greg Dworkin

            We are paring down to minimalist for our impending move (temporary) down south.

            Amazing how much crap you can accumulate living in the same house for 24 years and 3 kids.

            Our goal: Take nothing that we can't get into a 4x8 U-Haul trailer.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:36:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  how long to you figure to be there? (0+ / 0-)

              it's getting cold in these parts?

              "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

              by Greg Dworkin on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 04:19:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A couple of months, but we need to play it by (0+ / 0-)

                ear.  We have some family obligations to handle, but will be looking for a motorhome so that we can take our act on the road and maybe drum up some business.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 06:24:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  but if your only real point is that (0+ / 0-)

      TP=GOP, that's almost true.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:21:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We can't intervene here, now. (3+ / 0-)

    Two words: George Bush.

    We as a nation are - or should be - in international "time out" for misbehavior starting in the Bush administration and continuing now.  Gitmo comes to mind, but only after Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, the "mushroom cloud" scenario, and lies through the teeth.
    And getting caught lying through the teeth.  
    If the US were a child, it would be sitting in a corner in an extended time out.
    We cannot do this "alone" - assuming the rest (or most of the rest) of the world refuses to go along. We have no moral authority to do so, especially in the Middle East.  Even with other players, but especially by ourselves.

    This is insanity.

  •  A problem I have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, tb mare

    I have a major problem with Democrats dismissing all Republican opposition to military intervention as anti-Obama hypocrisy. There may be some of them that think that way, but I find Justin Amash--despite my many disagreements with him--to be far more principled than most Democrats.  Claiming that someone can't have legitimate arguments for one belief because they don't for others is a cheap ad hominem attack.

    And if Republicans are more skeptical of shameless, baseless scaremongering when it comes from a Democrat rather than from a Republican, I welcome their skepticism in this case and hopes it endures.

    •  difference between claiming ALL opponents (0+ / 0-)

      are unprincipled Obama haters (I don't) and asserting that dominent GOP/TP policy is driven by Obama haters (I do).

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bob Gates Backs ... (0+ / 0-)

    For a moment I read 'Bill Gates...'  More coffee, please.

  •  Syria Long Term Will Not Have Political Impact (0+ / 0-)

    The Obama response will be limited and will just be a blip in the catastrophe that is Syria's civil war.

  •  Nature vs Nurture: Are Guns in the Blood? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    Firearms Law and Policy published our second diary last night, Nature vs Nurture: Are Guns in the Blood? by BadKitties. Cheers to BadKitties and al lwho stopped by for an interesting conversation, that continues this morning. Please join us!

    DNA monster
    Does DNA always rule?
    We are planning to walk all across the country, state-by-state, and will dedicate a diary to a survey of each state's gun laws. If you would like to write about gun laws in your state please send a Kosmail to LilithGardener.

    Please drop by our Glossary of great links to law and policy resources, Introducing a new Group: Firearms Law and Policy - Glossary of Resources.

    To join and write for us Kosmail LilithGardener.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To advocate effectively for repeal or passage of firearms legislation we must first know and understand current law and policy, and how both are implemented, where we live. There is enormous variability across the country; the relative utility/relative risk of firearms is different on a 500 acre ranch in Montana than for a 1000 square foot apartment in New York. State and local laws reflect that diversity. We will discuss firearms law and policy with an emphasis on the many historical ethics and ideals of Western Civilization, as opposed to what are currently known as "Libertarian" ideals.

    This group is also a study group; a place to learn and discuss which gun regulations are constitutional restrictions in this post-Heller environment. (A law degree is not required). With Congressional gridlock likely to impede any useful national legislation, progress will have to be made at the state and local level.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please note: We are not a subgroup of the Daily Kos RKBA group and do not agree with their foundation premise, but hope they will share their insights into state and local laws that work.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    To join us send a message to the Firearms Law and Policy Group.

    SUMMARY of GUN LAWS - The Law Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence


    ALABAMA KENTUCKY NORTH CAROLINA
    ALASKA LOUISIANA OHIO
    ARIZONA MAINE OKLAHOMA
    ARKANSAS MARYLAND OREGON
    CALIFORNIA MASSACHUSETTS PENNSYLVANIA
    COLORADO MICHIGAN RHODE ISLAND
    CONNECTICUT MINNESOTA SOUTH CAROLINA
    DELAWARE MISSISSIPPI SOUTH DAKOTA
    DST OF COLUMBIA MISSOURI TENNESSEE
    FLORIDA MONTANA TEXAS
    GEORGIA NEBRASKA UTAH
    HAWAII NEVADA VERMONT
    IDAHO NEW HAMPSHIRE VIRGINIA
    ILLINOIS NEW JERSEY WASHINGTON
    INDIANA NEW MEXICO WEST VIRGINIA
    IOWA NEW YORK WISCONSIN
    KANSAS NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:32:00 AM PDT

  •  Tea Party self destruction: Syria Vote! (0+ / 0-)

    While I am against a military attack on Syria, I think this vote in Congress is going to be an interesting situation. If the Teahadists take the President's request hostage then we could be seeing some real repercussions from this vote. If the vote is taken honestly with reasoning and deliberation then I see no problem with the outcome either way. But if they pull some grandstanding and bluster from the TP nutcases they might further damage themselves and the GOP in the process.

    They will be seen clearly as sabotaging our government instead of equal participants in it. Not like they haven't been screwing with us all along. But during times of crisis and possible war we shouldn't be playing games as they have. Let the smart people discuss. If you act like a child then you should sit at the children's table. lol!

    "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 Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:55:11 AM PDT

  •  OBama on same side as Sheldon Anderson (0+ / 0-)

    Man, our politics is such a farce. They only disagree on pocket change stuff....

    Can we stick to the issues? Please!

    by AnthonyMason2k6 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:26:51 AM PDT

  •  When all you have is a hammer... (0+ / 0-)

    ...every problem looks like a nail.

    If I were of just slightly more cynical bent, I would say that ALL the US has going for it now is the most powerful military in the world.

    Chinese achieve their foreign policy goals through economic pressure and influence and we are stuck with pounding the shit out of Arabs with hellfire missiles and hitting them with F/A-18E/F Super Hornet jet fighter/bombers.

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

    by TerryDarc on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site