Senior GOP Senators: We Won't Support Military Strikes Without 'Overall Strategy' To Remove Assad
Source: Business Insider
In a joint statement released Saturday, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) commended the president for seeking congressional approval for actions against Syria, but expressed strong disapproval of limited military action.
The senators wrote that they believe Obama is correct in the assessment that Assad has used chemical weapons and this requires a military response. But they have continued to call for a more robust military response to "shift the balance of power."
Here's the statement:
“We believe President Obama is correct that the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons requires a military response by the United States and our friends and allies. Since the President is now seeking Congressional support for this action, the Congress must act as soon as possible.
However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America's friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world – all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.”
Both McCain and Graham are senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-gop-senators-we-will-not-support-limited-strikes-without-overall-strategy-to-remove-assad-2013-8
= new reply since forum marked as read
We want a REAL war, dammit! Must. Kill. MORE. People. 
Although I am VERY critical of many of Pres. Obama's policies, in this case, Obama / Biden are being consistent with their previous statements:
Barack Obama, with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Joe Biden, TV interview in 2007: “The president has no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.
So GOOD on them for going this far. I say Congress needs to pass a "Declaration Of War" - but, tragically, that part of the Constitution has been ignored for a very long time. The next Dem-Pres-nominee needs to swear to end this practice. Are we going to let the "Tea Party" grab the moral high-ground on this one, as they have with the NSA? The "left" can have much greater legitimacy on these than the "right" ever could - especially if we include ending Corporate-spying and Corporate-wars in our message - an angle the "Tea Party" candidates won't talk about, given their fawning devotion to Koch et al.
As to the McCain warmongers and "national security" - it would be nice if they explained exactly how American's lives are threatened by Assad, and made "safer" by aiding Jihadists.
Keep in mind, the greater "Libya Plan" is a Cheney gig (extending Brzenzki's "Arc of Crisis"
, regardless of the "spin" the Ds (humanitarian) or Rs (national security) put on it. Seymour Hersh did a piece in the New Yorker back in 2007 which all should read for background. Here are some relevant pieces:
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
...
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”
Translation of Orwellian DoubleSpeak: "They will not sell out their people to the Transnational Corporations We Serve, so WE Will Destabilze THEM." (Exxon named a freaking Oil-tanker after Condoleeza Rice, btw)
Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.
...
Walid Jumblatt, who is the leader of the Druze minority in Lebanon ... said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”
...
the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.
Also remember that Syria was a French Colony, as created by the Secret Treaty known as the "Sykes-Picot Agreement." Yes, "they" do conspire on big things, and it ain't just some 'theory', either. This explains a lot of recent French military activity, as well as their current regime's interest in this war, to spite their citizens' objections.
The good news in all of this, is that the legitimacy of currently existing "states" as "representing" their citizens, is being severely undermined by Internet-communications and current state-activity. Discussions like this tie in the pieces of the picture which the media "they" own doesn't include in the P.R.-crafted so-called "analysis" provided for their cattle, er, I mean "citizens."
"They" know which way the wind is blowing - and I think "upholding the legitimacy of the system" has a lot to do with this call for a Congressional vote. Now, we just have to hold the Congress-people's feet to the fire - which is a bit easier, as their votes can be used against them - locally - in the next election.
On that front, why is Pelosi still winning Dem-primaries out of San Francisco, of all places?? Gotta fix that, eh?
