Obama's Carte Blanche War Resolution
Any war resolution Congress would pass would likely be interpreted by the administration as a license for all out war on Syria and beyond.
But the first draft the executive is putting to Congress is even worse:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to -This draft is nearly as wide as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that Congress passed on September 14 2001 and which has been (ab-)used by the Bush and Obama administrations as an undiscriminating, unlimited license to incarcerate, torture or kill anyone at the free discretion of the executive.
- prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapon of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
- protect the United States or its allies and partners against the threats posed by such weapons.
The key words in Obama's draft and their meaning are:
- "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ==> no limits apply
- "in connection with" ==> as everything is connected ...
- "or deter the use or proliferation" ==> by whatever means
- "to .. other state .. actors" ==> target Iran
- "or components of or materials used" ==> from corrugated steel to petroleum products
- "protect ... or its allies and partners" ==> the Zionists
- "against the threats posed" ==> includes non-use but assumed existence of such weapons
It is clear from this wording that such a resolution would allow nearly everything far beyond the "punitive" few cruise missile strikes against Syrian forces the administration marketed so far. It could easily be used for an outright blockade of Iran or even a "preemptive" strike against Iran's industries in the name of "deterrence" and "protecting" Israel.
It is all or nothing, peace or unlimited war. Anyone with peace on her mind should hope and work to prevent any war resolution from passing Congress. The abuse of any war resolution by this and the next executive is practically guaranteed. And even with a Congress approved war resolution any attack by the United States against Syria would still be a illegal war of aggression under international law.
There is some hope that the French parliament may come to help. The French president is now under pressure to also allow a vote on a war on Syria and beyond. That would would likely come before Congress votes and the French people are very much against a war. A "no" vote in the French parliament would increase pressure on Congress to also reject war.
During next weeks discussions it will be important to point out that the U.S. "intelligence" about the chemical incident in Syria is full of holes. The paper by the British Joint Intelligence Organisation used by Cameron to ask for war speaks of 350 people killed in the incident. On Friday Secretary of State Kerry spoke of 1,429 people killed. The draft war resolution speaks of "more then thousand" killed. 350, 1,429, 1,000 - which is it?Even the often quoted, pro-insurgency Syrian Observatory for Human Rights rejects these numbers as propaganda:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that monitors casualties in the country, said it has confirmed 502 deaths, nearly 1,000 fewer than the American intelligence assessment claimed.If the British and U.S. intelligence can not get the death count right what else in their estimates are just guesses based on open source rumors and insurgency propaganda? Are such unconfirmed estimates, not knowledge, really enough to send off armed forces to kill more and more people in foreign lands?Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the organization, said he was not contacted by U.S. officials about his efforts to collect information about the death toll in the Aug. 21 attacks.
"America works only with one part of the opposition that is deep in propaganda," he said, and urged the Obama administration to release the information its estimate is based on.
Posted by b on September 1, 2013 at 6:18 UTC | Permalink
« previous page@somebody
I am not sure what Obama wants.
It's a waste of time to try to ascertain what a young man with a thinking problem who has accomplished nothing except to get elected -- to be "sure of what he wants." Waste of time. He's way over his head, he made some ill-advised, redline pronouncements and now instead of eating crow he wants to lash out -- that's all he wants. There's nothing deep about it. He needs a good spanking and he'll get it, one way or the other.
The shrill dickwad of the year award goes to... Mark Levine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HCdj9ApYVM&feature=youtu.be&t=11m05s
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 22:43 utc | 203
Israel threatens blackmail - Israel will attack Iran if US doesn't attack Syria...
From Mondoweiss website
Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria
by Max Blumenthal
... Snip
... "Now that Obama has turned to Congress to authorize force against Syria, he is under relentless attack in Israel, with a chorus of pundits and politicians hammering him for his act of betrayal and cowardice in the face of evil. Amidst the din of condemnation, a talking point has emerged that will likely figure at the heart of Israel’s case to Congress and the American public this week.
The message was neatly summarized in the headline of a piece by the Likud-friendly correspondent Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post: “Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran.” Referring to Obama’s decision and the British’ parliament’s vote against participating in a strike on Syria, Keinon wrote, “That kind of international dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran.”
At Haaretz, Amos Harel reinforced the talking point in a piece of analysis that claimed “Arabs perceive Obama as weak” – but which cited absolutely zero Arabs. Running through a litany of examples of supposed American weakness, Harel concluded, “it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
The threat of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran if the US does not act on Syria is slowly seeping into American media, and will almost certainly grow more pronounced this week as pro-Israel pundits and members of the Obama administration unite on their message. AIPAC may also join the push for congressional authorization, a move the night flower-style lobby managed to avoid during the run-up to invading Iraq. If the Israel lobby is forced into the open, it could hold the prospect of an attack on Iran like a gun to the heads of members of Congress, warning them that the price of inaction is a regional conflagration.
Though Congress will be under unrelenting pressure from powerful forces to authorize force, the vote provides an unprecedented opportunity for opponents of US military intervention in the Middle East to mobilize. Anti-war forces may not be able to match the financial muscle or public relations power of pro-war elements, but they have opinion firmly on their side. And a direct conflict with the American public may be the one fight Netanyahu does not want to pick."
Highly recommend reading the entire article. Israel has been behind this matter from the beginning, according to Blumenthal.
Posted by: crone | Sep 1 2013 22:46 utc | 204
The politicians are acting like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan never happened. Will they never learn? Answer: Yes, after the ME goes up in flames and some US targets take hits. There will be limits on the US but NOT on others. A one-sided limited war. Makes no sense.
USAToday
Congress seeks narrower authority for Obama in Syria
WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress in both parties said Sunday they would not be able to support the current draft of a resolution authorizing President Obama to launch a military strike against Syria, and top Democrats said it will have to be rewritten to limit the president's authority.With conservative Republicans raising serious doubts about a military strike against Syria, Obama will need a strong vote of support from House Democrats to get the resolution through the House. But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the resolution submitted Saturday by the White House is "too broadly drafted" and that he cannot vote for "a partial blank check."
Van Hollen said the resolution would need a time limit on military action and some guarantees that American troops would not be sent into Syria before he could support it.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee also said the resolution will be rewritten to narrow the authority it gives the president, and that the administration is aware of that.
Ho, hum, another Israel threat to attack Iran.
Herb Keinon and Amos Harel say so.
What a waste of space.
@somebody "Even extensive strikes without boots on the ground"
But there are most likely boots on the ground and there will certainly be attempts to seize the Syrian chemical stockpiles with special forces. That has been discussed by the Western media since the insurgency began.
The Syrians know full well that absent an agreement with the US that, as Mr. Pragma said, the strikes will last A number of minutes and involve B number of missiles - all verified by Russian radar - that the assault is intended to bring down the regime and there will be an attempt to capture of the Syrian weapons.
The Israelis know this as well and will probably have their own teams to send in. The question is whether they'll be able to deal with Syrian special forces who have spent the last two years battling insurgents. And recall too the the Syrian population is now well armed and trained. These Western commandos will not simply be able to race through Damascus unhindered intimidating the population while they do their work. Everyone has learned the lessons of Iraq. If there are any attempts to secure a base for extended period of time to try and blow up the stockpiles or, they will be meet, in the first moments, by militia forces, and secondly, by well trained Syrian commandos. Think less "Shooting a Man in his Pajamas and his Wife in Abbottabad" and more "Black Hawk Down x 1000".
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:01 utc | 207
"There's nothing deep about it"
I'm suprised you don't see something more sinister behind the man. Do you really think that slick marketing campaign, with perfect timing, was the work of an in-over-his-head simpleton? I beg to differ. There was definitely a force behind Obama that determined what would sell through ideological and rhetorical posturing. Yet, in the end what we really got was a continuation of the policies instituted by the Bush Administratiuon. Rendering continues unabated. Domestic spying has accelerated. No one has been held accountable for the myriad of crimes committed by the Bush Administration. Executive fiat still employed extensively through signing statements and Executive Order. The Patriot Act strengthened and increasingly utilized. Gitmo still operational. Drone use increasing exponentially. Whistle blowers indicted, demonized, punished. Covert black ops expanded into Yemen, Jordan, etc.. Continued subsidy of Israeli policies and actions......need I go on?
These continued Bush Administration policies do not seem the result of a simple young man "in over his head" to me. I see something far more sinister at play here. I think that this man was placed in the Oval Office expressly to pursue an agenda already in play. An agenda pursued by the neo-con players that gave us 9/11 and the subsequent "Global War On Terrorism". Knowing that the American people were tired of the direction that the Bush Administration was pushing us in foreign policy, and realizing that another Republican in the Presidency would not be able to escape blame for the impending collapse of our economy......
Well, they created and marketed a marrionette that personified the logical and predictable desires of a disillusioned and angry citizenry. We were sold a Trojan Horse, a product that simple logic determined would be a best seller. Same product we had with Bush in the Oval Office, albiet with new packaging.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 23:03 utc | 208
Barry has murderous eyes
The Nobel for peace was his prize
He's prepping for war
So Kleptos get MOAR
And Kerry's in charge of the lies
The Limerick King
http://www.flickr.com/photos/expd/9633395565/
Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 1 2013 23:06 utc | 209
There goes Kerry's "We know"
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s announcement that he will ask Congress to authorize military force in Syria.“I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial. The atrocious use of chemical weapons against civilian is an affront to human values and a violation of international law. It should be condemned by the international community as a whole.
“The coming debate in Congress will hopefully shine the light on outstanding questions -- as will the results of the U.N. inspection team. We must wait for these results before any action is taken. What I hear from Iowans is that the Middle East has a complex history and the conflicts there will not be solved by U.S. military action alone. We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications.”
Posted by: somebody | Sep 1 2013 23:07 utc | 210
What could go wrong with this Syria action?
It's here.
There are already US military boots on the ground, as has been commented before. Snake-eaters. Special Forces. PLUS, also commented before, there are 1,000 UN personnel and 30,000 Russians, amongst other foreigners. But who cares -- saving face for Barry is the main thing. That's deep.
@207 You're right in that it is Bush in new packaging, I just don't see why you have to have a sinister central character when a doofus would do, and do more, and do better.
It's like the transfer of power in a monarchy. The new king doesn't have to be smart, he just has to like sitting in the throne and not rock the boat. Obama is that man. The real power is way off in the back somewhere plotting things out - like the recent chemical attack - and then they say "Okay Obama, you're the king. If you want the adoration... you better not look like a pussy when all those poor children got killed. You know what people will say if you don't do anything, right? Huh guy? Huh? President want a treat? I hear Goldman Sachs has a $5M salary for a tough ex-president who knows how to stand up to dictators... Hiiistorical Leeegacy... So give us the good word then and don't fuck it up." and he dutifully does whatever he's been roped into because he has no morals and he thinks that is his job to "sell the right thing" to the people - whoever they are.
No, people who plan shit this evil look all withered and mean like Dick Cheney, and no one would ever elect them (the people of Wyoming notwithstanding). What we need here is a shallow, good looking chap with a daddy complex.
And BLAM! You've got 'Bam.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:17 utc | 213
#209....
The "what" seems to be the only selling point. The "who" part of the question is being purposely left out off the debate as it applies to the UN inspection team's findings.
On its face, the whole "story" seems absurd to me. Simplified to its roots, this whole thing becomes ridiculous.
Simultaneously with allowing a UN chemical weapons inspection team into the country, Assad launches a large scale chemical weapons attack that kills hundreds of civilians??
HUH???? So, Assad got to where he is by committing outrageous acts of stupidity? He's an absolute idiot that somehow blundered his way into power?
So, uh...gee....who REALLY benefits by such an outrageous act of inhumanity? Who REALLY reaps the advantages of a predictable American military response telegraphed by Obama's "redline" threats?
This is such an over-played deception that it defies the imagination. And none of our media whores can be bothered to employ a bit of common sense, intuition, logic, integrity, or investigative ability to expose the absurdity of this whole fucking fantasy?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 23:21 utc | 214
Sorry, I still maintain the redline crapola was an absent-minded throwaway line by a hubris-laden power-corrupted neophyte "doofus" and now he been called on it. Nothing deep or sinister about that. About other things, yes, like screwing Americans who could use some help, but not about this. There's no depth to it, as we are seeing.
Sorry, I still maintain the Syria redline crapola was an absent-minded throwaway line by a hubris-laden power-corrupted neophyte "doofus" and now he been called on it. Nothing deep or sinister about that. About other things, yes, like screwing Americans who could use some help, but not about this. There's no depth to it, as we are seeing.
"You're right in that it is Bush in new packaging, I just don't see why you have to have a sinister central character when a doofus would do, and do more, and do better"
Well, the "doofus" isn't the issue, or the problem, is he? Obama isn't "in over his head". In fact, he played his part perfectly, didn't he? He's sitting in the Oval Office, isn't he? He's not "in over his head" because he is not pulling the strings. He is simply playing his part. Trust me, the people controlling Obama's strings are a far cry from "doofus" material. Look what they have managed to do to thus far to pursue their agenda.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 23:27 utc | 218
Obama 'has the right' to strike Syria regardless of Congress vote, says Kerry
Posted by: Gareth | Sep 1, 2013 10:53:33 AM | 48
a honest man would say:
Obama 'has the right' to kill Syrians regardless of Congress vote, says Kerry
Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 23:32 utc | 219
@213 totally.
To anyone who was paying attention, it is clear as day.
Rebels start eating people.
"Not a secular force to speak of"
Hezbollah enters the war.
The Syrians win a huge game changer at Al-Qusayr.
The Emir of Qatar gets put out to pasture by the Saudis, as does Morsi.
US gets dinged for NSA spying, a story that just won't die
Russia takes in Snowden and suddenly becomes the "anti-gay hell"
The Israelis start feeling the heat for peace talks.
Suddenly Bandar is on the scene threatening the Russians who tell him to go eat with his left hand and then...
Chemical attack by Assad.
Yeah right. My ass.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:36 utc | 220
206) I agree. And that is why Syria and Iran are going to throw everything they have.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 1 2013 23:39 utc | 221
How's Obama's other war going?
Last year, April 16, 2012: Now the US and its coalition forces are gearing up for what may be their final offensive in the decade long war in Afghanistan. The strategy in eastern Afghanistan involves clearing militants from provinces such as Ghazni, just south of the capital. The pivotal region links Kabul with the Taliban homeland in the south and provinces bordering Pakistan to the east. Long a cultural and trade capital for Afghanistan, Ghazni is one of the oldest parts of an ancient land. The British and Soviets are just some of the foreign armies that predate the Americans.
Some recent troubles in Ghazni:
# Staff Sgt. Joshua J. Bowden, 28, of Villa Rica, Ga., died Aug. 31, in Ghazni, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire while on dismounted patrol.
# Staff Sgt. Michael H. Ollis, 24, of Staten Island, N.Y., died Aug. 28, in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device, small arms and indirect fire.
# Sgt. 1st Class Ricardo D. Young, 34, of Rosston, Ark., died Aug. 28, in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/
Hell, that's going so well, let's do it in Syria.
"There's no depth to it, as we are seeing"
There was "no depth" to the WMD (Iraq)deception either, Don. Many of us saw right through it. The lack of depth ended up being of no consequence, didn't it? Besides, the "depth" is being provided by the sensationalism employed by the media's "reporting" on this situation.
You think that your perception of this shallow charade is universal? Well, by all means, inquire amongst your peers, associates, acquaintances, and fellows. They find plenty of "depth", supplied by the likes of Anderson Cooper, Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, etc.. You can see the bottom of the pool because you're looking for it in the actual pool. But most of our fellows are directing their gaze where they are instructed to do so, and find the "depth" on CNN, Fox, MSNBC...
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 23:41 utc | 223
"Trust me, the people controlling Obama's strings are a far cry from "doofus" material. Look what they have managed to do to thus far to pursue their agenda."
You're right, I didn't say they we're. I'm suggesting that is where the genius probably lies, behind the throne. Was Obama the driver of the campaign or just the object? I don't know. He certainly doesn't look to be having an easy time of it, nor to be particularly at the nexus of what is going on in this country. He just seems "there" at this point.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:43 utc | 224
'between 1985 and 1989, the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance'
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/news_pf/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml
this is the CDC being mentioned doing this!!!
Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 23:47 utc | 225
"Was Obama the driver of the campaign...."
Now there he WOULD have been "in over his head". No. He's just an able actor. Its not his acting that now suffers, its the script. No one could save this one, no matter how well they act. This one is gonna have to be all about marketing. And it looks like our media is going to be up to the task.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 23:49 utc | 226
Sen. Leahy tells The Washington Post that the resolution is "too broad" & will be amended in the Senate.
Posted by: Harper Langston | Sep 1 2013 23:51 utc | 227
219) it is an important distinction though: If things get that far. My guess is that right now there are discussions going on with Russia, Iran, and the Syrians all trying to tell Obama to back off of this bullshit.
I don't think either side really wants this. It would be so much easier if Obama hand't A) drawn that stupid line that allowed about anyone with a bit of gas to get the US to go to war and B) he didn't have a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that can simply threaten war and terrorism with no consequences.
It is really quite amusing to see these pundits claim "The rebels are not known to have chemical weapons" and "the Saudis are not known to have these weapons, where would they get them?". As if an army that can run a country wide war whose main ally is a dictatorship with billions to spend somehow couldn't get his hands on the same thing a Japanese cult could.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:52 utc | 228
Posted by: crone | Sep 1, 2013 6:46:36 PM | 203
not entirelyu good
see this insert:
'obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor '
'While the Israelis are far from the only force in bringing the US to the brink of war – obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor – their dubious intelligence assessments have proven pivotal'
utter bunk: what'actions?
Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 23:55 utc | 229
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323932604579048910595598686.html
The Arab ministers' closed-door debate became heated at one point. "Are you Lebanon's foreign minister, or Bashar al-Assad's?" the Emirati foreign minister demanded at one point of the representative of Lebanon, the Arab diplomat said.Iraq—itself governed now by a Shiite-led administration that came to power following the 2003 U.S. military invasion—opposed endorsing a U.S.-led airstrike on the Syrian regime, as did Algeria, according to analysts and the diplomat. Egypt abstained.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 23:58 utc | 230
re Blumenthal article:
i tweeted him this
@MaxBlumenthal your http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/dubious-intelligence-and-iran-blackmail-how-israel-is-driving-the-us-to-war-in-syria.html good BUT ;'obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor ' #rubbish
Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 23:58 utc | 231
I can see why he would think that, since Obama has "struck" -- i.e. killed men, women and children -- in several countries since the day he took office, without any authorization from anyone except his compliant legal staff that either say "you can do it" or they become ex-staff. Pakistan comes to mind, and Yemen, Somalia, Libya of course where he vastly exceeded the already illegal UNSC resolution, Afghanistan of course, plus other places we haven't heard about I'm sure.
Kerry had 'the right' to kill Vietnamese at will when he was there. It's American Exceptionalism. They think alike.
As if an army that can run a country wide war whose main ally is a dictatorship with billions to spend somehow couldn't get his hands on the same thing a Japanese cult could.
That's good.
news report:
Dozens of lawmakers, some in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for a Sunday afternoon intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's national security team.When they emerged nearly three hours later, there was no immediate sign that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds.
An apparently well-credentialed investigative reporter for the AP, BBC and NPR, a 20-year-veteran in the Middle East, has stated that Saudi Prince Bandar was the source of the chemical weapons unleashed upon the civilian population in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21(?), 2013. According to this source, rebel forces were given the weapons by the Saudis but without clear instructions as to their use. In the immediacy of the event, the chemical weapons attack was, it seems, an accident. The obvious next step is to investigate Saudi culpability and possible US government collusion with them. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz0TxVmq3-Q
Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 2 2013 0:21 utc | 235
@231 To be honest I stole the first half from a tweet of b's
Busted.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 2 2013 0:25 utc | 236
German Report: How Turkey Supports Jihadists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8&sns=tw
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 2 2013 0:34 utc | 237
@Don
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA 21 Aug
.@stcolumbia If the insurgents can run a countrywide war why can't they drop six canisters of riot agent in towns held by them?
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 2 2013 0:35 utc | 238
there are two things (among many others ...) that I don't understand
1) if Obama is prisoner of his own rhetoric, as someone says, why doesn't he simply evade asking for a thorough analysis of what really happened? instead, he really seems to want to strike Assad (with Congress' complicity), but why? (yeah, I know, someone says it's all Aipac, except I simply don't believe Aipac today can pull the Us into a war it doesn't want to fight)
2) why did Uk (!), Italy (!!), Canada (!!!) so promptly call themselves off the game? sudden autonomous thinking on the part of vassal states and soulless politicians? what other lobbies are behind this crumbling of Obama's credibility, if not of the Empire itself? BTW, these defections are another symptom either that Israel doesn't want a real war in Syria, or that all of a sudden "friends of Israel" groups lost their influence; but in this case, one should ask: in favor of what other groups? if Aipac was so strong as to pull the Us reluctantly into war, then there wouldn't have been these defections
I would like to think that these defections point to a silent rebellion of Us allies against continuous, senseless wars, but it's hard to believe; maybe NATO members have been briefed by Putin on the risks of escalation; but even in this case, what would Canada have to fear?
Someone else shares these doubts?
Posted by: claudio | Sep 2 2013 0:35 utc | 239
I don't like the way any of the US politicians think, and I don't want to listen to any of them talk, fullstop. Especially not talk about Syria. But I'd like to know whether they are going to vote to bomb Syria. I believe that I can find out the answer by looking at USA public opinion polls and practically nothing else. I believe the polls are, and will prove to be, a trustworthy indicator semaphore of the outcome of the vote in Congress.
Obama said yesterday about the upcoming vote: "it's about who we are as a country".
No new polls were published today, according to a search for the terms "syria" AND "poll" AND "Americans" at news.google.com
Here follows summaries of two older public opinion polls in USA.
A poll conducted on 26-27 Aug and reported on 31 Aug at http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_syria_0826272013.pdf .Question: "Do you think the United States military should or should not use air strikes to aid rebels in Syria?" Result: 25% YES; 41% NO; 34% NOT SURE.
Question: "Do you think that the U.S. has a responsibility to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons against rebels, or not?" 31% YES; 38% NO; 31% NOT SURE.
Question: "Based on what you’ve heard, would you say that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against rebels, or not?" 59% YES; 4% NO; 37% NOT SURE.
Next, a poll conducted 19-23 Aug, which was the subject of worthwhile commentary about the non-intensity of most respondent's opinions, published by a commenter on 31 Aug at http://www.imediaethics.org/Blog/4116/Do_americans_want_us_intervention_in_syria_what_the_polls_really_mean__.php .Question: "If the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against Syrians, should the United States intervene in Syria, or not?" 25% YES; 46% NO; and 29% volunteer they don’t have an opinion.
Question: "As you may have heard, the Obama Administration decided last month to arm the anti-government rebels in Syria. Do you agree or disagree with this decision?" Result: 7% Strongly agree; 20% Somewhat agree; 25% Somewhat disagree; 22% Strongly disagree; 26% Don’t know.
Colonel (retired), USA) Ann Wright reminds us of what happened in 1983 in Lebanon.
In October 1983 U.S. warships bombarded Lebanon. . . at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and. . . the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley.
Within weeks, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a massive truck bomb that killed 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers. The truck driver- suicide bomber was an Iranian national named Ismail Ascari whose truck contained explosives that were the equivalent of 21,000 pounds of TNT. Two minutes later a second suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into the French military compound in Beirut killing 58 French paratroopers.
The coordinated dual suicide attacks were supported, planned, organized, and financed by Iran and Syria.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/31-3
@claudio #237
there are two things (among many others ...) that I don't understand
War Is the Health of the State
by Randolph Bourne, 1918
. . .Government is obviously composed of common and unsanctified men, and is thus a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, things may be assumed to be moving safely enough; but if the opposition is in, then clearly all safety and honor have fled the State. Yet you do not put it to yourself in quite that way. What you think is only that there are rascals to be turned out of a very practical machinery of offices and functions which you take for granted. . .With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle. . .
Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation. Its idealism is a rich blood flowing to all the members of the body politic. And it is precisely in war that the urgency for union seems greatest, and the necessity for universality seems most unquestioned. . .
Here's more info on the alleged chemical weapon attack in Syria, including Ghouta and the possibility of thermobaric weapon.
hmm @ 157 Maliki had forced the US to shut down Camp Ashraf and move the bulk of the MeK elsewhere, long before we headed out the door...! Those 100 individuals left are hardcore militants...!
@240 A Libertarian Point of View ~ War is the Health of a Nation
... "Bourne's essays written in opposition to World War I while he was on the editorial staff of the New Republic are not typical of anti-war literature. He provides very little in the way of critiquing specific policies. He does not dwell upon the 'Butcher's Bill' of dead soldiers and civilians. He does not rail against the profits reaped by the military-industrial complex, which was collectively called 'the munitions makers' in his day. The thrust of Bourne's essays is to attack the sanctity of war by showing how it leads to the moral collapse of society by kicking out the props (the principles) of peaceful interaction upon which society rests.
In essence, Bourne addressed the moral consequences of war upon a post-war society which had abandoned individualism in favor of "the herd-machinery." He eloquently argued that post-war America would be morally, intellectually, and psychologically impoverished. By this observation, Bourne did not mean that peace time America would struggle under the increased bureaucracy that never seems to roll-back to pre-war levels. Many historians have made this point. Bourne addressed the less tangible, though arguably more significant, costs of war. For example, post-1918 America would be burdened by intellectuals who had "forgotten that the real enemy is War rather than imperial Germany."(13) In converting World War I into a holy war, the intellectual and psychological groundwork was being laid for future instances of what he termed "the sport of the upper class" -- global conflict."
~ Wendy McElroy
Well,Howard Zinn had a different take on it ~ "History is A Weapon" - and it's proving to be the case today with this charade being compared to the one perpetrated in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Let's just see where it goes.
Posted by: crone | Sep 2 2013 2:07 utc | 245
Bourne clearly illustrated the benefits of war to politicians, as the war consolidates the public and makes them more beholden to the state because of the threat of enemies. He likens it to religion.
In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation
In this way, war is particularly helpful to weak, characterless individuals like Obama who need all the help they can get. It explains why Obama seeks war even when it defies logic, in response to claudio.
Al-Azhar university in Cairo is the largest and most influential religious university in the Arabic-speaking world. The council of scholars of Al-Azhar is the highest moral authority in Egypt, and its influence spreads throughout the Sunni Islam world. On 1 Sep 2013 Al-Azhar declared its opposition to any U.S. strikes on Syria, saying this would amount to "an aggression against the Arab and Islamic nation". The Al-Azhar institution in a statement "expressed its categorical rejection and condemnation of the decision by the American President to launch military strikes on Syria", and insisted on "the right of the Syrian people to decide their destiny and their government for themselves in all freedom and transparency," while condemning the "recourse to chemical weapons, whoever it was that used them." (Emphasis added by me). http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/96401-al-azhar-says-against-u-s-strikes-on-syria , http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Templates/Articles/tmpArticleNews.aspx?ArtID=69707
Al-Azhar university and its council of scholars is controlled by the person Ahmed el-Tayeb, who is the Grand Imam of al-Azhar.
I kind of hinted at my question behind some heavy snark earlier, but seriously. Somebody explain this to the slow student here.
How has an ostensible "humanitarian intervention" suddenly been spun into a "national security" issue? Did I miss a step where somebody claimed that Syria even has the capability to threaten the United States? Yeah, yeah, I heard the crap about "sending a message" to unspecified other players who might, one day, develop nuclear weapons, blah, blah, with an accompanying blah, blah. That does not make Syria a threat to US national security and you could pick a country out of a hat to "send a message" with. What immediate and imminent threat does Syria allegedly pose to the USA that demands a swift and decisive response even with the potential for global disaster that this carries?
And if they could threaten the United States, how does even that justify the fact that we are becoming the de facto water carriers for Al Qaeda here? If there is truth to that story making the rounds regarding Prince Bandar threatening Putin by bragging about controlling terrorists whom he can leash and unleash on a whim, does this shed some new light on the nationalities of the 9/11 guys? (Bush the Younger was recently quoted repeating his mantra that "Some people seem to have forgotten 9/11," a statement which has now gained yet another layer of irony!)
Again, how is it possibly being spun that supporting the House of Saud and Al Qaeda is in the national security interests of the United States? Honestly, walk me through this here.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 2 2013 3:25 utc | 248
Insane isn't it Monolycus... clearing 'thru the looking glass'
Posted by: crone | Sep 2 2013 3:34 utc | 249
These are the topics Obama will have to cover in the next week, especially the national security bit. Politicians will be asking the same questions you ask. How does Syria threaten US security? What about this aiding the radicals?
Monolycus, I seriously doubt that Bandar would actually make that threat, even in a very veiled and hinted form to Putin. He may have counted on Putin knowing his history, but if Bandar was dumb enough to say it, then he had better stand clear of his car for a while when the driver turns the key.
Regarding the movement from humanitarian intervention to national security threat, it's just like the Iraq war in reverse. Back then it was the threat of WMD morphing into humanitarian democracy building. Most likely it has something to do with selling it to the public. The people didn't buy the humanitarian intervention, likely because they have seen so many dead Arabs and Muslims over the years, that they wonder whats so special about this last bunch. So maybe they can be scared into fearing that 'WMD in the hands of terrorists' line.
I wonder who will be the first politician to say something like "Imagine if the Boston Bombers had sarin!!!" We should set up a betting pool.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 2 2013 3:46 utc | 251
Just a quick rant. I think what bothers me most about this is the sanctimony. I mean, if the US just came out and said "we are going to use brute force to maximize Israel's strategic power, just because we feel like it and we can," I would still be angry, but it wouldn't be as bad as now.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 2 2013 3:50 utc | 252
237) yes I have been wondering
1) The red line was designed in August 2012 to justify intervention at a moment the rebels had momentum, were Muslim Brotherhood owned by Qatar and Benghazi had not happened yet. Libya was still exporting oil, and the illusion was that things would work out there. France had not intervened in Mali.
The situation according to the Guardian was this
SYRIA
• The US has downplayed comments by the Syrian deputy prime minister in which he appeared to offer to discuss Bashar al-Assad's resignation. Qadri Jamil, on a visit to Moscow, was quoted as saying:
As for his [Assad's] resignation, making his resignation a condition for dialogue effectively makes holding such a dialogue impossible. During the negotiating process any issues can be discussed, and we are ready to discuss even this issue.
Asked about Jamil's comments, US state department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said:
Frankly, we didn’t see anything terribly new there ... The Syrian government knows what it needs to do, and the Russian government, as you know, joined us in Geneva in setting forth a very clear transition plan ... There’s no need to complicate it, as the deputy prime minister appeared to do there. We still believe that the faster Al-Assad goes, the more chance there is to quickly move on to the day after.
So why did he say that? Because Israel was freaking out on the prospect of a power vacuum with rockets and chemical weapons next door.
Now, 2013 with rebels owned by Saudi Arabia and the momentum the other way Obama is walking into a wall. Why?
My answer to that is - because Israel feels much safer with Assad in control of chemical weapons and an isolated Hamas. Egypt's position is quite interesting in that respect. Saudi Arabia's influence there does not seem to go far.
The neocons construction of an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran just does not work. They are incompatible on the ground. Iran is with Turkey one of the few countries with a Jewish community. Saudi Arabia tolerates neither synagogues nor churches.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 2 2013 4:15 utc | 253
Syria's stash of CW has to be destroyed before Israel/US move onto Iran, otherwise Israel is in danger by attack from Syria of CW...
Posted by: crone | Sep 2 2013 4:26 utc | 254
@claudio #237:
Sounds like we are one well-aimed Yakhont away from collapse of the dollar. That could make more than a few folks nervous. The more exposed the portfolio, the less aggressive this time around.
@POA re Kerry's credibility-hipocracy nexus: You obviously did not properly grok what Kerry was saying. He is concerned that the threats are losing their credibility. I quite clearly can hear the meaning dripping from his fangs and splashing on the floor of the senate.
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Sep 2 2013 4:26 utc | 255
So Obama called up the Zionist PM and informed him of his plan to delay a strike on Syria BEFORE he informed Congress and the American people.
"Senior Israeli officials who asked to remain nameless stated that the phone call took place roughly four hours before Obama's speech.
In contrast to phone calls made to other world leaders, the White House decided to keep this specific call between Netanyahu and Obama a secret, and not make any announcements to the press. The Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem also made no mention of the phone call. White House and the PMO responded to Haaretz inquiries with the same answer: "No comment."
Senior Israeli officials stated that the talk between Obama and Netanyahu was aimed at coordinating both states' next moves regarding Syria."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.544753
The conversation probably went something like this:
Obama: Hello boss, I think it's better if Congress votes on this Syria strike and we can word the resolution so the military offensive can be subsequently expanded into Iran and maybe the opportunity to strike Hezbollah will present itself as we go along.
BIBI: Good thinking. You're really starting to pay dividends on our investment, Barack. Keep up the good work!
Obama: Gee, thanks boss! So now, I'll inform the people.
BIBI: Okay, but just keep our part in this a secret, remember, we're just innocent victims and you're just trying to protect a friend like other allies in the region. No one needs to know that we came up with the plan and fixed the intelligence. We don't want to be seen as pulling the strings on this and risk creating resentment from Americans. Just word your speech to make it sound like our interests and yours are inextricably linked.
Obama: Sounds good boss, I'll keep you updated. L'hitraot!
My comment: SIGH...when will Americans wake from their slumber.
Posted by: kalithea | Sep 2 2013 4:36 utc | 256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
Tomahawk missiles will be launched from well beyond the reachable range of Yakhonts - US military planners are not stupid. At 1,000+ mile range Syria's only chance is one way missions by its fighter jets. Any Syrian naval asset will be sunk well before posing any credible threat.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 2 2013 4:36 utc | 257
@157
The BBC calling MEK "Iranian dissidents" is a real laugh. Terrorist cult would be more apt.
@250 Lysander
The whole show galls me, too. We understand that empires do horrible things all the time. They feel as if there's no other way, to act as a hegemon you have to pretend to be nothing more than a concerned outsider, or the other hegemons gang up on you in the name of human rights.
New Germany gained hegemony over Eastern Europe simply by coercing new governments into enacting hideous neoliberal policies. No one outside the region even thought about the horrors they were inflicting throughout Europe, until people started dying in Greece. Old Germany wore skull badges and black leather while gaining hegemony over Eastern Europe, and they're now the watchword for infinite evil.
Posted by: Crest | Sep 2 2013 4:38 utc | 258
The neocons construction of an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran just does not work.
It's worked just fine since the days of Nasser, and in fact since FDR. The neocons just noticed it recently. KSA, purely by coincidence of course, has tried to destabilize every country or agent that was really in opposition to Israel, from Nasser, to Iran and Hezbollah. They joined the blockade of Hamas in Gaza, the supported Abbas.
In fact, the ONLY action they have ever taken contrary to Israeli interests was the '73 oil embargo. And the king who did it got shot 3 years later.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 2 2013 4:42 utc | 259
"The neocons construction of an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran just does not work."
It works just fine since their common religion is: G.R.E.E.D
Posted by: kalithea | Sep 2 2013 4:47 utc | 260
257 :-)) no doubt. I was saying on the ground, people actually talking to each other. However, the correct description presumably of KSA's policy would be "destabilize any country that opposes the US as long as it opposes the US". KSA's foreign policy never was sectarian - they enjoyed really good relations with the Shah.
The problem with KSA's strategy of tension networks however is their ideological tendency to fight the US (and Israel given a chance). It does not go over well with Western publics sending their soldiers to the region or paying taxes to fund interventions. It might be politically unsustainable.
This here is Haaretz summary of the Israeli's security delegations talks in Washington. No, they are not there to tell the US what to do, they are told what the US plans to do:
A senior Israeli official said the main conclusion from the discussion was that Israel should “keep a low profile” and not let itself be dragged into events in Syria. The official said much of the meeting was devoted to various scenarios of escalation that could develop if America strikes the Assad regime, and which could result in Israel being dragged into the Syrian war against its will.“The defense establishment’s assessment is that the likelihood of a Syrian response against Israel following an American attack is low,” the senior official said. “Nevertheless, when something like this starts, you don’t know how it’s liable to develop, and therefore we need to be ready and set policy in advance.”
How do you think support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Al Nusrah in Syria is seen by the Israeli public when the Israeli government has used Islamists to justify and strengthen the Israeli security state?
By the way, why is everybody falling for the line devious Israeli intelligence tricked the CIA into accepting fake evidence? Rather than the CIA outsourcing the faking of intelligence so not to be liable under the law of their country?
Posted by: somebody | Sep 2 2013 5:16 utc | 261
By the way, why is everybody falling for the line devious Israeli intelligence tricked the CIA into accepting fake evidence? Rather than the CIA outsourcing the faking of intelligence so not to be liable under the law of their country?
No one is falling for a line... we're thinking people. Israel is infamous for planting fake evidence, false flags. Of course you know that. You sound different from the other "Somebody" ~ how many of you are there?
Posted by: crone | Sep 2 2013 5:46 utc | 262
So much of this narrative doesn't work. It's like they're just phoning it in now. I miss the days when people took pride in their dissembling and their mendacity was at least coherent. "Amateur hour" is right.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 2 2013 6:29 utc | 263
260) Actually one somebody as far as I can see. Just do not like stupid conspiracy theories. I like intelligent ones. Does anybody really believe the story of the naive CIA falling for fake Israeli intelligence. As turns out, NSA was eavesdropping on Israel's embassies. If the British have their own SIGINT, so have the US.
I hear party whips let Congress vote on their conscience. Nobody is interested in helping the Obama administration out on this one. Obama can authorize action on his own, that would be worse than having authorized it before his decision to go to congress.
It is likely that all this is political theater designed to make it look as if Obama has tried to do what he could.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 2 2013 6:37 utc | 264
Now we talk - from Anne Marie Slaughter's think tank - New York Times
One of the grave problems of the Syrian civil war for U.S. policy has been that it has risked entangling the United States even more deeply in an anti-Iranian (and historically at least, anti-Russian) alliance with the Sunni autocracies of the Persian Gulf that back the Syrian rebels.This alliance sits badly with America’s own secular and democratic values, with America’s commitment to a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq and with America’s hopes for progress in the Muslim world. The sponsorship of Sunni Islamist extremism by some of these states poses a threat to American security, and their pathological hatred for Shiism has contributed to deepening the Middle East’s disastrous sectarian divides.
Using Moscow to develop new relations with Iran is therefore necessary not only for a resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue and (eventually) of the Syrian conflict, but also in the long run for the restoration of basic stability in the Middle East.
And it should be noted that while Russia has preserved good relations with Iran, it has also on occasion been prepared to be tough with that country. The intensified U.N. sanctions eventually agreed to by Russia and China had a severe effect on the Iranian economy and seem to have contributed significantly to Hassan Rouhani’s victory in Iran’s elections.
Of course, a Syrian peace settlement will be terribly difficult to achieve, and will probably not be achievable until both sides have fought themselves into a state of exhaustion.
Nonetheless, the basic contours of any long-term settlement are already clear, as is the need for Iranian and Russian participation. While sending a strong military signal to Damascus and other regimes to never again use chemical weapons, Washington should at the same time intensify attempts to lay the diplomatic basis for this eventual settlement.
That is what the Obama administration intends to do, just normal people are not cynical enough to support bombing Damascus for something like this. And neither Israel nor the Gulf states will like it. Neither Iran nor Russia are stupid enough to fall for it. And Syria will fight with their support.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 2 2013 7:03 utc | 265
Everybody who is into the Ghouta gas bombing mystery should check out this, and its, um, precursor, this, from (of all people) Yossef Bodansky.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 2 2013 9:43 utc | 266
266) there is also this witnessed by the Swiss.
Iran had informed US 9 months ago that extremist elements are transferring chemical weapons to Syria.In an interview with Iranian weekly, Aseman, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif said the country had sent an official memo to the Swiss embassy in Tehran which represents the US interests section in Iran and informed US that ‘Hand-made chemical weapon Sarin is being transferring to Syria.’
“In that memo we warned that extremist groups may use the chemical agents,” Zarif said although the “Americans never replied to the memo.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister believes that the supporters of the extremist groups are trying to misguide US and trigger a new war in the region to secure their interests.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 2 2013 10:06 utc | 267
#267: Yes, this is the same thing Bodansky is saying, he calls it "kitchen sarin." It's ironic. Yossef Bodansky is a USraeli who served as Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. He is well-known as one of the few hard-core zionist operatives in the USraeli intelligence world who insists that AQ and the Iranians are in cahoots. Unlike the Israeli elite in general, Bodansky cannot bear the idea of an AQ-ruled Middle East. So he is breaking ranks here.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 2 2013 10:38 utc | 268
@somebody #265
Using Moscow to develop new relations with Iran is therefore necessary
That's a good one. These pretentious people never quit thinking the US rules the world.
I agree with the Syrian hackers! U.S. Marines shouldn’t be sent to fight on the side of Al-Qaeda in Syria while they’ve been threatened and killed by Al-Qaeda on other fronts.
Posted by: kalithea | Sep 2 2013 15:40 utc | 270
The comments to this entry are closed.
The Arab League met today and has called for UN action against Syria under international law, IOW no action at all since the UN Charter does not allow action in domestic disputes. Libya was passed for R2P but they won't go there again, Russia and China won't that is, since the US exceeded its allowance and went for regime change, plus Syria isn't Libya (duh).
aljazeera
Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 22:33 utc | 201