Thank You Mr. Grayson

[malaise]

Fugg war

We are not the world's police and cannot fix every wrong in the world by bombing it.


And yes - Obama needs Congressional approval.

Thank you

[cali]

1. I'll thank him but I'll also thank Rep. Welch who was aganst it well before

Grayson got on board and has led on this for dems, going back to June:

Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, is leading a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers, along with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, in an effort to stop the United States from providing financial assistance to the rebels in Syria.

Democratic Reps. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rick Nolan of Minnesota joined Gibson and several other Republicans at a Thursday news conference to announce legislation that would prohibit the Obama administration from arming the Syrian rebels and intervening militarily without an authorizing resolution from both the House and Senate.

“If we intervene militarily, we will exacerbate the situation,’’ said Gibson, a retired Army colonel. “We will not ease the concerns or the suffering there.’’

Gibson suggested the United States use economic leverage to oust President Bashar Hafez al-Assad rather than getting “further sucked into a very difficult situation.’’

Welch said those who hope for a negotiated settlement once Assad is ousted are misguided.

“There is some unity among the rebels to take out Assad, but as soon as that happens, if that’s successful, there is going to be score-settling,’’ Welch said. “We should learn the lesson that we can’t micromanage an outcome here.’’


<snip>

http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/06/27/gibson-leading-effort-to-restrict-funding-for-syrian-rebels/

[malaise]

2. Welsh is a good guy

you 'objective' Oregonian

[Myrina]

3. K&R

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R

[99th_Monkey]

5. K & R ~ nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Mr. Constitutional Scholar

Puh-leeze.

[calimary]

7. Agreed.

Gee, didn't we try this once before - one of the many flimsy arguments bush2 cited for getting rid of Saddam Hussein was invariably "he gassed his own people!!!!"

Well, we sure showed him, alright, didn't we? We sent a message out there about the folly of using chemical weapons on your own people. EVERYBODY learned from that one, didn't they? NEVER saw the likes of that atrocity again, did we? Sure took care of that problem once and for all, didn't it?

I just don't think anything good, longterm OR short, will come of this if we go ahead with it. Innocents will still be killed - and probably by us and our "surgical strikes", and we sure won't get any thank-yous or be met with flowers and sweets after we do this. Even if we topple Assad, the people fighting him don't like us. Whose side do we take, and who do we arm and assist - al Qaeda or Hamas? Which pro-Western set of rebels is that, again? And we're likely gonna get stuck in deeper and deeper when it starts. And all we need to fire up the Arab world further against us, and up the ante against us, is yet another scene of the U.S. bombing another Muslim country. Yep, that's the ticket fer sure!

[delrem]

8. What this Syria buildup is showing

is that the Dem base is a bit more divided on following the PNAC neo-con program than the Reps.

But it also shows, esp. today on DU, the incredible pull of the siren call to war, esp. when the ones calling to war are "on our team". IMO that siren call couldn't be possible without a fully acquiescent MSM. A MSM that voiced the obvious *questions* (not even objections, just *questions*) regarding who is to blame, not just for this but for al-Qaeda funding and armaments, and regarding what those armaments consist of (esp. after Libya's armaments were opened to the "rag tag army of freedom fighting rebels&quot . The corporate MSM asks NO questions. Like: is it possible for chemical weapons (napalm, sarin, etc) to be delivered via ground to ground missiles - or do they require an air force? Is it true that al-Qaeda is too *moral* to initiate a false-flag operation of such scope; has al-Qaeda proved itself to be a moral force that Syrian citizens can feel safe behind? How *did* two distinct armies of al-Qaeda come to power in the so-called "liberated zones"?

NO SUCH QUESTIONS ARE ASKED, to counter the 100% pro-war neo-con message.

[LearningCurve]

9. Guy sounds like some kind of Democrat

eom

[rhett o rick]

10. k&r thanks for posting. nm

[KittyWampus]

11. Was he briefed yesterday by the White House about Syria?

[malaise]

14. Briefing won't make it legal

[KittyWampus]

18. yes, but it would answer to claims intelligence is bogus. If you don't know the answer just say so.

[malaise]

20. So says Putin

and right about now I'm not sure who has less credibility- the US or Russia.

[woo me with science]

12. K&R.

[Little Star]

13. Hear, hear!

[99Forever]

15. Damn pesky Democrat...

... wanting the "Constitutional scholar" President to follow the Constitution.

He always hated Obama and must be a racist.

Freedumb!

[malaise]

21. Obama will seek Congressional authorization

What a wonderful political moment for humanity. Vote no Congress! iTime to pull back from policing the world.

[99Forever]

22. I truly hope you are correct.

We'll see.

[nashville_brook]

16. big k and r

[L0oniX]

17. Looks like the worshippers are going to have a tough time keeping this one under the bus. n/t

[spooky3]

19. Why aren't we going to the UN?

Isn't the point of the UN to determine what multiple world leaders believe should be done when civil wars or aggression occur?

Yes, I get that Russia, china, and others may block actions for various reasons, but there is much to be lost if we insist on bring the sole "cop" and to decide arbitrarily when acting on one wrongdoing but not on another is warranted.