"A crime that the world's nations--with near unanimity--have recognized for generations" does not have the world's nations--with anything even close to unanimity backing bombing Syria. There is no call to arms by the world's nations for military actions against Syria. If we were basing our actions on what the world's nations--with near unanimity--have decided there would be no AUMF going to Congress for approval because the world's nations--with near unanimity do not support the U.S. proposed actions in Syria.

The Guardian:

The latest revelations about the authorisation of chemical exports to Syria proves that British ministers should avoid two things - lecturing the public on personal morality and lecturing the world on human rights. Both will come back to bite them. While Nick Clegg commented on the pages of the Guardian earlier this year that the UK was a "beacon for human rights", his business secretary was authorising companies to sell chemicals capable of being used to make nerve gas to a country in the middle of a civil war.

And this, from Foreign Policy:

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

[snip]

 According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

And let's not forget that Syria was our partner-in-torture, shall we?  "Maher Arar" ring any bells for you?

In September, 2002, while on a layover at JFK in New York, Arar, a telecommunications engineer from Canada, was detained by US authorities because they thought he was a member of al Qaeda. He was held incommunicado in this country for two weeks and then sent on rendition, not back to Canada, but to another one of our staunch allies in the War On Terror. Once there, Arar was beaten, and held in a rat-infested 3-by-6-foot cell from which he could listen to the screams of other people being tortured. He was held there in those conditions for 374 days. Eventually, the Canadian government settled a lawsuit brought by Mr. Arar. Facing a similar suit, the United States government invoked a "state secrets privilege" to kill Arar's efforts to get justice. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

The plucky ally that was so willing to cooperate with the United States in the torture of Maher Arar was Syria.

So, here's what I would suggest: there's no question that the use of chemical weapons is wrong, but considering our involvement in their use over the years, and our selective alignment with and support of governments that have used them, you need to find a different reason for why we're now about to start raining missiles down on a people who have already lost 100,000+ to conventional weapons in a civil war we didn't want to save them from.

Why not just be honest?  I get that you see it as a form of accountability, but when do we start holding ourselves accountable?  Who holds the US accountable?

"This time it will be different."  Sure it will.  

If my husband was an active-duty member of the military, I'd be far more concerned, frankly, about the broad resolution the president has proposed for Congress to vote on.  And I'd have to wonder if chemical weapons aren't being used as the key to unlocking more power in this president and those who succeed him.  It's what they do.  And opportunity is knocking.

I am also wondering about how quiet Israel has been in all of this - or am I imagining that?

This is a win...this is a win already.  Go down in history as the anti-BushCo that rediscovered diplomacy and the value of difficult red line negotiating and containment.

I have a husband who served in Vietnam.  I have a nephew set to go to Parris Island in December for basic training.  My father and both my grandfathers served in WWII.  That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't question what's happening - and it certainly isn't an insult to me or them or anyone actively serving to want to know that with lives at stake, decisions are being made that don't or won't unnecessarily put them at risk.

Were it not for the debacle of the Iraq war, of the lies and deceptions and manipulations and machinations and playing on the raw fears in the wake of 9/11, and if we weren't on the cusp of knowing just how broad and deep the government's lies on surveillance are, maybe we'd all come at this a little more confidently - but this is where we are, Donald.  

 ... on this particular subject, perhaps you can learn to simply disagree with MT on this issue, without being so condescending and insulting to a woman whose husband is an Iraq and Afghanistan  veteran still on active duty in the U.S. Army.

I dont believe Ive been either one, I have challenged her ideas and stated opinion. Ideas which should be able to stand on their own. You know nothing of my personal stake in the matter, maybe I have multiple friends and family directly involved. My argument exists independent of that, and would be no more valid if that were the case.

Strictly my opinion, and further speaking as someone who lost his father to the Vietnam War, I find that MT is not prone to offering up frivolous statements on matters of war and peace. Unlike most of us here, myself included, MT actually has skin in this particular game and thus has a lot to lose personally, should these current affairs somehow go terribly awry.

Rush to Syrian War: What About US Relations With Iran and Russia?

It is not lost on Iran that the AUMF for action in Syria is written broadly enough that US military action could spill over into Iran. A Fars News article dated yesterday cites the Jack Goldsmith analysis of the draft AUMF that foresees US action in Iran
[...snip...]
I find it truly remarkable and somewhat surprising that even in the midst of a domestic economy that the US has ruined through its sanctions and with new threats looming that could turn into direct US military action within Iran, there are still back channel efforts that show avenues of discussion being maintained. And yet those who lust after an attack on Syria seem ready to shut off those communications which almost certainly would come to an immediate end once the first cruise missile heads into Damascus.
[...snip...]
Especially now as the report directly implicating Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan supplying sarin to rebel factions in Syria to carry out the deadly attack gathers more attention, the US needs to be more forthcoming in its sharing of its intelligence that points toward the Assad regime as carrying out the attack. And so far, Russia is not pleased with US behavior on that front
[...snip...]
Lavrov has a dire prediction for the consequences of a US attack carried out without the consent of the UN Security Council:

"If someone tries to make gross violations of international law a norm, then we will create chaos," Mr. Lavrov warned. "We will create a situation where the U.N. Charter and the principles under which all the nations of the world have signed up, including the principle of unanimous agreement of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the so-called right of veto, which the United States insisted on -- then all of these principles will simply collapse."

Perhaps Obama should keep the size of his d a classified secret and instead share the "convincing" evidence that the Assad regime carried out the attack.

It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets - either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force "in connection with" the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President's use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" of WMDs "within, to or from Syria" or (broader yet) to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons."  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied ("as he determines to be necessary and appropriate").  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President's powers (such as a time limit).

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes...

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes...
...
UPDATE 2: I neglected perhaps the most salient implication of the proposed AUMF: The phrase "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were "necessary and appropriate." link

The GOP is the way it is. And Obama's actions are Obama's actions.

Obama, McCain and Boehner.

That should make any Democrat think about it...

Think?

Did I say "think"?

"Listen", I"ll bet they're thinking... "let him bomb a little, "acceptable" civilian casualties, and maybe we'll hold the House in 2014". McCain, Boehner and the rest of those idiot maniacal morons get what they want, the spittle dripping from their rimless lips, and the Dems get "credibility".