Senate Syria Compromise: Foreign Relations Comm. to Vote

The leaders of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee have agreed on a compromise Syria resolution. (Full text here.) It's not quite what Obama wanted, but it is expected to go to a committee vote tomorrow.

The bill limits the authorization to 60 days, with an option for an additional 30-day deadline, and makes clear there would be no boots on the ground, the sources said.

More here. A new Reuters poll shows 56% of Americans opposed to an attack.

I'm not in favor of the strike. Seems like a hollow gesture and a slippery slope -- for us. Give our leaders an inch, and they'll find a way to go for the mile.

< Hillary Clinton Backs Obama Syria Policy | Syria: The Obvious Questions About Doing "Something" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm sure that obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    is determined to do this "in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals"
    And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
    Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there...


    He's (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    out to drop the bombs in a manner that is consistent with the ideals of McCain, Boehner and Cantor and their spiritual guide, GW Bush.

    They also appear to be (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    pretty popular 'ideals' around here, too...

    I do support the strike (2.67 / 3) (#13)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    If you were ever to set aside your nihilistic rants, there would be a basis to discuss.

    If you (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    characterize my opinion as a nihilistic rant, instead of referring to the actual specific content with which you disagree, there is indeed no basis for discussion.

    Well, those are (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    his ideals. He can have them.

    Just nuts (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:39:06 AM EST

    Obama wants to take an action that could easily cascade into a regional war perhaps triggering WWIII for what appears to be saving face for his unthoughtful "red line" declaration.


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    And to those who think that is farfetched, they have only to consider what we did in Vietnam to save face:
    Result: 58,000 young Americans killed or missing in action. 340,000 wounded.

    In addition to that:

    Estimated number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the war is 587,000.
    Estimated number of Vietnamese civilians wounded in the war 935,000.


    If credibility is the issue, Obama would gain a lot more of it by acknowledging that he made a mistake in pronouncing a "red line".


    Actually he announced (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:53:58 PM EST

    that he was speaking for the entire world.  Apparently speaking as the president is below his awesomeness.

    "Don't blame me, I didn't start this" (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Nemi on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    A somewhat defiant (aka pissed) Obama at press conference in Stockholm, Sweden:

    "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

    "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line."

    So he is (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    apparently presidentin' the world now?  I've heard of this affliction.  It's called narcissism....one of the main symptoms, delusions of grandeur.

    Who is representing us in Washington? (4.83 / 6) (#3)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:32:33 PM EST
    The Majority of Americans don't want this. So who is representing us? They don't seem to care what we want.  

    The streets around the white house (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:35:46 PM EST
    are empty.

    Count me in... (4.80 / 5) (#1)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:34:25 PM EST
    that 56%.  If we really wanted to punish them we could shower them with Nickleback cd's, or some of Kerry's old speeches when he was running for president.

    I like the idea of invading Syria. (4.80 / 5) (#6)
    by redwolf on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 02:02:11 AM EST
    I know that we screwed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but I'm sure we'll bring order, freedom, and democracy this time around.  If we're lucky the rebels will only kill 200k more of their own people and maybe a couple million Christians to boot.  Small price to pay to finally prove that our "bomb you into democracy" strategy really works.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:48:56 AM EST
    But if obama really is serious about wanting to show how serious a war president not to be f'ed with he seriously is, he might get serious, invite Assad to the white house for a summit, grab the opportunity with both hands, and take him out mano a mano with his bare hands in front of the white house press  corps.

    To 'send a  message'.

    The added big benefits to this serious approach would be that there would zero collateral damage, obama would earn 'respect' all over the world, and nobody would ever f*ck with him again. Why waste a few billion on cruise missiles for this guy, anyway?


    What (4.80 / 5) (#8)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:52:13 AM EST
    a transparent load of garbage.

    I'm ashamed of our government - the executive branch in particular - Would that there were a way to sweep them all out of office forthwith.

    Our democracy, in as much as it is supposed to be representative, would be exposed to the world as a sham.

    No one in the world, in the entire world, will ever again believe that our battles of conquest have anything remotely to do with the establishment of democracy. The contempt shown by the administration for democracy here at home is all too evident.

    People around the world had high hopes once Bush was finally out of office - but those hopes have been dashed. Bush dimmed the light of freedom and now Obama is set to extinguish it.

    Obama has already shown that he thinks nothing of the abuses of the NSA and domestic spying upon American citizens who have done nothing and are suspected of nothing.

    And now, he wants the military option of a banana republic dictator. He, like Bush, thinks it's OK as long as he's the dictator.

    "Compromise"? "Compromise"? Are they kidding?

    60 days with an option - to do a little surgical bombing?
    That becomes 90 days. And that will entail another 90 to "get the job done".

    And how many innocents will the world watch us kill?
    And what reprisals will we be provoking?

    And as far as the guarantee of no "boots on the ground", could Kerry possibly have been more evasive than he was at the hearing in which he regurgitated the following "guarantee":

    "I'm absolutely confident, Mr. Chairman, that it is easy, not that complicated, to work out language that will satisfy the Congress and the American people that there's no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the Congress doesn't want it to while still protecting the national security interests of the country."

    Just wave "national security" at us, and all the doors open. All restraint disappears. All semblance of representative democracy gets thrown in the trash.

    I would hope that the 56% of Americans who see through his grab for power would march on Washington - and barrage their representatives threatening not to vote for them, but also to actively work for their defeat.

    If one of the founders of our republic were to appear and ask me, "Oh say, does that star-bangled  banner still wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

    I would have to respond, sadly but definitively, "no".

    Here is the resolution text (4.67 / 3) (#2)
    by bmaz on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    Here it is

    Not so sure it really is less than Obama wanted, read closely it is pretty open in its permissions.

    I imagine Jack Goldsmith (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:34:38 PM EST
    will have a dissection of it up on his blog fairly soon, following up on his analysis of the wish list AUMF that obama sent to Congress the other day.

    A Modest Proposal for Syria (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    There are some 20 million people in Syria, some of whom may die rightly, and some wrongly, if left to chance.  To make matters worse, they are fleeing the nation by the millions at an increasing pace.

    This need not be.  We in the United States have a responsibility. Syrians are not less worthy of proper deaths than ourselves.  We need spare no financial expense due to prejudices of religion or ethnicity.  It is time for us to step up as the International Community, while the rest of the world's nations fail.  We can make sure Syrians meet a proper end.


    The benefits of my scheme are so numerous that one is apt to forget the central and most significant objective, which will be accomplished with complete and total success if our actions are swift and comprehensive.  That is: we will stop the wrong people killing anyone with weapons deemed unacceptable by the International Community.

    Enough with halfway measures, I say!  Enough with telling the Democrats we won't join another endless war beyond our control on the side of Al Qaeda! Enough with assuring Republicans we'll stand shoulder to shoulder with terrorists until Iran is destroyed or Russia launches nukes! We have the technology. We have the stockpiles. Wipe every Syrian out with acceptable weaponry today! It's our humanitarian responsibility!

    -- A Modest Proposal for Syria, 04 September 2013