Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This really is a full service blog.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Those who are easily outraged are easily manipulated.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

This blog will pay for itself.

To the privileged, equality seems like oppression.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

We will not go back.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / More on the Syria Issue

More on the Syria Issue

by | 154 Comments

This post is in: ,


.

TPM has the full text of the President’s remarks, for anyone who wants to parse it.

What I’ve been looking for — unsuccessfully, so far — is information on how this will affect the G20 meeting, which is due to start in Russia next Thursday, with or without Congressional approval. Shortly before the Rose Garden announcement, according to the AP, “Putin urged President Barack Obama on Saturday not to rush into a decision on striking Syria, but to consider whether strikes would help end the violence and be worth the civilian casualties they would inevitably cause.”

This was not gonna be the most cheerful G20 under any circumstances, but the intersection of finance and politics-by-other-means cranks the gruesome up to eleven. And it’s not like they can just reschedule this year’s bunfest, because there’s (always) too much going on with the global economy to look for a convenient plague outbreak or an Icelandic volcano erupting.

ETA: Count on Time‘s Swampland to live up to its title: “To make matters more complicated, Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding.”

ETAA: From Politico:

The White House has sent Congress a draft resolution authorizing the use of American military force in Syria, with a narrow focus on interdicting chemical weapons — or their use — by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The draft resolution, crafted by White House officials, does not set any deadline for U.S. action, but it is clearly written to assuage congressional concerns over open-ended American involvement in the two-year-old Syria civil war…

Reader Interactions

154Comments

  3. 3.

    chopper

    “Putin urged President Barack Obama on Saturday not to rush into a decision on striking Syria, but to consider whether strikes would help end the violence and be worth the civilian casualties they would inevitably cause.”

    so is putin walking away from the ‘it was the rebels what gassed all those people’ line?

  4. 4.

    Anya

    But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

    Expecting 7000 very poorly argued wingnut articles about how we’re a constitutional REPUBLIC, and not a constitutional democracy.

  7. 7.

    dmsilev

    @debbie: I think Reid said he would call the Senate back early, but Orange John and his bunch of maniacs are at last report staying on vacation for another week.

  9. 9.

    Chris

    Oh, FUCK YOU, Word Press. (Sometimes spelling it out isn’t enough).

    @Anya:

    How did you know?

    I checked PJMedia (my favorite wingnut barometer) and that was the highest rated comment. (Next to other comments about how Obama was chicken and had fucked it all up and the only reason he was going to Congress was to cover his ass).

    They really are pathetically predictable.

  10. 10.

    chopper

    @dmsilev:

    as deliberative bodies go, the house is the equivalent of a person in a persistent vegetative state.

    heh. congress in a coma/i know i know/it’s syria

  11. 11.

    Anne Laurie

    @debbie: Most of the other G20 leaders are liable to have Very Strong Opinions, whether or not Congress has taken a vote by Thursday. Or, really, Monday, since Labor Day is not a holiday outside the US.

  12. 12.

    Roger Moore

    I feel at least a little bit vindicated, because this is exactly what I suggested Obama ought to do. It forces the warmongers in Congress to put their money where their mouths are and explicitly stand up for a bombing campaign. They won’t be able to play both sides of the fence and criticize him no matter what he does. If he does it right, it will spell out exactly the limits of his authority, so they won’t be able to blame him for not doing enough, either.

  13. 13.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @jnfr: I think it was already gonna be pretty tense. I hope some of those leaders have the guts to be rude to Vladimir. Then again, I have no idea how much influence he actually has over the Assad régime.

  14. 14.

    debbie

    @Roger Moore:

    Yes. I cannot wait to hear President McCain opine on this situation. Could Assad be a man he could work with? Will Joe be in the gallery?

  16. 16.

    MattF

    At least we’ll get to see the neocons try to deal with war as a political issue, rather than as ‘national greatness’ or manly manliness. And we’ll get to see Russian opportunism and bluster exposed for what they are. Too bad, though, about those bombs and missiles– but there’s no unalloyed pleasures in this life.

  17. 17.

    RobertDSC-iPhone 4

    It’d be great to see them all stride in with rainbow pins on their lapels..

    Fixed.

  18. 18.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @debbie: Yes. I cannot wait to hear President McCain opine on this situation.
    Has anyone other than Lindsey Smithers joined Senator Mr Burns in calling for flat out regime change? Rand Paul will be interesting to watch, too. I can never quite get a handle on where his canniness stops and his crazy starts.

  19. 19.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Chris: 

    Oh, FUCK YOU, Word Press. (Sometimes spelling it out isn’t enough).

    The acronym for certain sure isn’t enough these days. If I were you, I’d go full-bore bold plus italics plus all caps:

    FUCK YOU, WORD PRESS!!

    Don’t forget the multiple exclamation points!

  20. 20.

    Anoniminous

    G20

    Probably nothing. The agenda is set to discuss global economic issues and these things are well scripted in advance.

  21. 21.

    Jeremy

    I love seeing so many people twist themselves into contortions trying to turn this into a negative for Obama. And if we needed more proof that Obama Derangement Syndrome is a serious problem then this sealed it.

    So Obama is called a tyrant then they call him a wimp. The media acts like the President boxed himself in when members of Congress are the ones boxed in. So far this day has been great.

  23. 23.

    Suzanne

    I’m starting to think that a full-scale ground invasion of Syria is a good idea, because all my wingnut friends who supported the Iraq debacle are against it.

  24. 24.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @debbie:

    I cannot wait to hear President McCain opine on this situation.

    Can you hold out until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning?

  26. 26.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Jeremy: I love seeing so many people twist themselves into contortions trying to turn this into a negative for Obama. And if we needed more proof that Obama Derangement Syndrome is a serious problem then this sealed it.

    Andrea Mitchell and Jim Miklasewski (sp?) were spinning plates of Concern like an old act from the Ed Sullivan Show. It was truly extraordinary. And I tend to think they’re two of the less stupid Villagers in the NBC universe.

  27. 27.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Has anyone other than Lindsey Smithers joined Senator Mr Burns in calling for flat out regime change

    That’s a rather ….fraught subject.

    I’m unconvinced that Israel’s purposes — and hence a good slice of Congress’ — would be much better suited with a coalition of largely unknown, demonstrably unpredictable, clearly Salafist actors, with links to the most extreme players in the Gulf, and a recrudescence of the Lebanese civil war, than with an Assad regime, no matter how badly distracted, they’ve dealt with for 50 years.

    Back when the winners seemed likely to be a bunch of Turkish-backed parliamentary-liberal types, maybe regime change seemed like a good thing….

  28. 28.

    Debbie(aussie)

    Does anyone understand exactly how attacking Syria is in the ‘national interest’ of the US? If it is because of conventions or treaties, why this one and why now?

    Edited for spelling

  36. 36.

    Anya

    @chopper: Which one tips the scale of Obama’s imagined stupidity, the use of the teleprompter or 57 state comment?

    @Chris: I have the misfortune of having a wingnut in-law (my brother’s MIL) and she sends me these stupid articles. I told her never to send me anything that was not family related. The sad thing is the woman is a Wesleyan grad (she’s from West Virginia, so that might explain it).

  38. 38.

    Villago Delenda Est

    Someone really needs to accidentally drop a 16 ton weight on Peter King’s head.

  39. 39.

    Roger Moore

    @Jeremy:

    I love seeing so many people twist themselves into contortions trying to turn this into a negative for Obama.

    I think he’s at least gone about it awkwardly. He has been acting as if the attack is a huge deal and says he has the right to respond on his own authority as CinC. It’s odd for him to then turn around an introduce at least a substantial delay and possibly and outright rejection by asking Congress for approval. I think it’s the right thing to do, but if he was always planning on going to Congress for approval, he should have laid the groundwork better.

    The media acts like the President boxed himself in when members of Congress are the ones boxed in.

    That’s because they think he really wants to attack and is just looking for an excuse, when it’s really Congress (especially the Republicans) who want an attack without any personal responsibility for it.

  40. 40.

    Jeremy

    And Andrea Mitchell just asked Tim Kaine (a good friend of the President) if it was okay that the President and Vice President went to play golf after the announcement. Tim Kaine said it’s okay to have some R&R after a very serious and stressful period.

    And once again we have more proof that the beltway press are the biggest water carriers for the GOP.

  43. 43.

    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    Why do I have a feeling that Boehner will find a way to avoid having a vote on this?

  45. 45.

    beer time somewhere

    Gee, I wonder what the Sunday morning TV circle jerks are going to be fapping about?

  46. 46.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Roger Moore: I think he’s at least gone about it awkwardly. He has been acting as if the attack is a huge deal and says he has the right to respond on his own authority as CinC.

    True. I don’t know if he thought he could tough-talk Assad in to some kind of concession, or if he was just so horrified by the scale of the most recent attacks that he felt compelled to act. Also, his closest advisors have a history of being interventionists– Kerry, Biden, Power, I think Rice (?). Seems to me Hagel may be the one most skeptical of it.

  47. 47.

    Cacti

    @chopper:

    so is putin walking away from the ‘it was the rebels what gassed all those people’ line?

    I though his position was “What chemical attack?”

    He shared it with Alan Grayson.

  48. 48.

    Jeremy

    @Roger Moore: Disagree. Since Obama became president the emo left, the media, and republicans have always opposed anything the president has said or done. If he does something they want they change positions. This is all about ODS and nothing more.

    Yes, you can say the Administration could have been clearer but this is a tough decision and it’s easy being an arm chair quarterback who doesn’t have to make big time decisions.

  49. 49.

    Suffern ACE

    @Jeremy: ah. Golf. The tone is all wrong. The president should be giving speeches from undisclosed locations until the Syrians are at peace with each other.

  54. 54.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Jeremy:

    And Andrea Mitchell just asked Tim Kaine (a good friend of the President) if it was okay that the President and Vice President went to play golf after the announcement.

    “Now watch this drive.”

  55. 55.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Peter King always reminds me of the loudmouth alone at a bar desperately trying to get people to listen to him, the kind that makes other barflies suddenly remember they promised to help the kids with their homework.

  58. 58.

    Cacti

    @Baud:

    Shouldn’t the president be brooding at a time like this?

    He should be heading to his fake ranch to clear some brush.

  59. 59.

    Roger Moore

    @Jeremy:

    Yes, you can say the Administration could have been clearer but this is a tough decision and it easy being an arm chair quarterback who doesn’t have to make big time decisions.

    I’ll accept that I’m Monday morning quarterbacking. A somewhat more generous take on my basic point is that he’s clearly improvising with a situation he didn’t expect, rather than playing a clever gambit in 11D chess. I guess there’s really no way of talking tough to Assad and then turning around to demand Congressional approval for an attack that doesn’t look at least somewhat unplanned.

  62. 62.

    The Thin Black Duke

    @Jeremy: This.

    And do you know what really drives these critics from both sides of the political divide crazy?

    It’s the painful awareness that Obama is smarter than they are.

    Even better, he knows it and he isn’t afraid to let them know it.

  63. 63.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Baud:

    Obama is able to multitask. He can brood AND drive, both at the same time. Simultaneously.

    /botlikeyouwouldntbelieve

  64. 64.

    Cacti

    This puts house Republicans in quite the pickle.

    On one hand, they hate Obama for existing and reflexively oppose anything he suggests.

    On the other hand, if they oppose intervention, the put themselves on record as letting a member of the “axis of evil” get one free chemical weapons attack on civilians.

    And that’s why he’s the POTUS, and you’re not.

  65. 65.

    Hal

    Speaking of G20, if Obama says anything publicly in support of Gay Rights will Putin have him arrested?

  66. 66.

    Roger Moore

    @Cacti:

    This puts house Republicans in quite the pickle.

    Of course, it puts a lot of Democrats in a pickle, too. A lot of them are genuinely anti-war and don’t want to launch strikes, but they also want to support the President. I sincerely expect the voting on the issue to divide both parties.

  67. 67.

    Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle)

    @beer time somewhere: Hell it is sobering seeing this site turn into Free Republic with pet blogging. Just as those who mouthed off about Maximus Supremus Shrubous, got ran out at Free Republic, when the war on terror began, it is about to start here if one cross is spoken about the President.

  69. 69.

    Mr Stagger Lee

    @Roger Moore: Oh don’t worry I’m sure the MIC has the bribe money to fund their re-election for 2014, I need to buy some stock in defense companies.

  70. 70.

    Suzanne

    @Roger Moore: I hate the term “anti-war”. It implies that anyone who believes that military might does at times have its place is “pro-war”.

    I’m pro-not being an asshole.

  71. 71.

    Narcissus

    I can see why senators and representatives would be upset

    I mean it’s not like matters of war and peace are part of their god damn job or anything

  73. 73.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    If only, when President McCain opened his mouth, the Village could remember it’s the same mouth that asked Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) weighed in on the situation in Syria, attacking President Barack Obama and saying he should “let Allah sort it out.”
    “Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, ‘Well, Bush did it.’ Bull,” Palin said in a Facebook post Friday night. “President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for ‘his wars,’ ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.”

  74. 74.

    Cacti

    @Roger Moore:

    Of course, it puts a lot of Democrats in a pickle, too. A lot of them are genuinely anti-war and don’t want to launch strikes, but they also want to support the President. I sincerely expect the voting on the issue to divide both parties.

    A war powers-related debate is long overdue in Congress. They’ve abdicated too much of that responsibility in the post WWII era. Earn your damned paychecks guys and gals.

  76. 76.

    Mnemosyne

    @Debbie(aussie):

    If it is because of conventions or treaties, why this one and why now?

    The sarin attack happened on August 21st, and sarin is one of the weapons banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. There were previous ones that were rumored to have happened, but this was the first one that seemed to have some plausibility and was worth sending a team of UN inspectors to.

    This really should be the UN’s job, but Russia and China both support Syria and keep blocking any action against them. I still don’t think that means the US should act unilaterally, but there don’t seem to be many options open for international actions because of Russia and China.

  80. 80.

    Roger Moore

    @Suzanne:

    I hate the term “anti-war”.

    Fair enough. Perhaps I should rephrase it to say that a lot of people have principled objections to the strikes. I am skeptical about them myself, though I certainly wouldn’t classify myself as “anti-war” or a pacifist. The point still stands that those people are going to face a serious question about voting their conscience or supporting their party’s President.

    @Suffern ACE:

    It should divide both parties.

    My gut feeling is that this is not a time for Nancy Pelosi to whip the vote mercilessly. Like it or not, there are going to be enough Democratic votes to support the strikes that any failure will be clearly the Republicans’ fault.

  81. 81.

    Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle)

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Oh I have and yes I won’t confuse Cole with JimRob. But can one deny that there is a growing 101st Chairborne division here and they demand feality to the president, and we must support his decision or it will be treason?

  82. 82.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @BillinGlendaleCA: @raven: also, too, Mistermix and Anne Laurie on the NSA

    @Roger Moore: I really don’t think it’s gonna fail. They spent too much time clamoring for consultation, and those pictures of burned and gassed children are only going to get more attention as things heat up. I’m hoping they have some effect abroad, too.

  86. 86.

    Warren Terra

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:
    Gaudy excess. I admire gaudy excess.

    What was that Molly Ivins said, “Too much is never enough, and wretched excess is even more fun”?

  87. 87.

    Mnemosyne

    @Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle):

    But can one deny that there is a growing 101st Chairborne division here and they demand feality to the president, and we must support his decision or it will be treason?

    Given how many people in this thread alone are saying “I’m not sure this is the right decision” or “I’m glad he’s making Congress vote on it because it will probably grind it to a halt,” I’m not really sure where you’re seeing these “OBAMA FUCK YEAH!” comments.

    It seems that what you’re upset about is that people are giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he’s making these decisions based on careful calculations that we happen not to agree with rather than declaring him the most warmongering warmongerer who ever warmongered.

  88. 88.

    Belafon

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Well, he’s obviously not commenting on Balloon Juice because he got banned for speaking out against the president. He’s on some other site. Or something…

  91. 91.

    Cacti

    @Mnemosyne:

    This really should be the UN’s job, but Russia and China both support Syria and keep blocking any action against them.

    This is one of those occasions that gives ammunition to those who question the efficacy of the UN.

  92. 92.

    Roger Moore

    @Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle):

    But can one deny that there is a growing 101st Chairborne division here and they demand feality to the president, and we must support his decision or it will be treason?

    Yes, one can deny it. It seems to me that there is vigorous debate on both sides of the issue, and nobody is getting thrown out because they take one position or the other. There also seems to be plenty of room for nuance in the discussions here, e.g. it’s fine to question both the NSA and Snowden/Greenwald, or to believe that Sarin gas attacks have taken place in Syria but refuse to support retaliatory air strikes because you question whether they’ll do any good.

  93. 93.

    chopper

    @Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle):

    But can one deny that there is a growing 101st Chairborne division here and they demand feality to the president, and we must support his decision or it will be treason?

    yeah, you can deny it, because it doesn’t fucking exist. treason? get the fuck outta here.

  94. 94.

    LadyBug

    @Cacti:

    Syria was never a member of the “axis of evil” that distinction belonged to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Although your larger point is well taken, no matter what Obama’s position is, the tea party will oppose it.

  96. 96.

    Davis X. Machina

    @chopper: It’s also a compound question — and tendentious to boot.

    I’d expect any of my HS mock-trialists to have objected to it…

  100. 100.

    Mandalay

    @Suffern ACE:

    It should divide both parties. If we don’t act because we can’t authorize it, good.

    The draft resolution that the Administration’s lawyers have sent to Congress essentially asks Congress to sign a blank check and hand it over to the president. I can’t see that passing the house.

  102. 102.

    Roger Moore

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I really don’t think it’s gonna fail.

    I don’t think it’s going to fail, either, and that’s exactly the reason not to whip it vigorously. This is a case where you have to let individual Representatives vote their consciences and their knowledge of their home districts.

  103. 103.

    beer time somewhere

    @raven: Jaysus, we have to listen to Brent Munchinhead doing the play-by-play. My ears are already bleeding. GO DAWGS!

  105. 105.

    Mnemosyne

    @soonergrunt (mobile):

    So it would be “the most warmongering warmongerer who ever warmongered a war”?

    Hm. You may be right. Still deciding how I feel about “mongered a war” over “warmongered a war.”

  106. 106.

    Jeremy

    @Roger Moore: Oh I wasn’t talking about you being an arm chair quarterback. I was talking about all the critics who constantly contradict themselves.

  107. 107.

    MomSense

    @Doug From Upland(I got dibs on this Handle):

    I have been really conflicted about how to deal with the mess in Syria. I had finally come to the place late last night (after speaking with a friend who is a humanitarian worker who really changed my perspective) where I could accept limited military strikes although not without tremendous reservation. But this is the first I have stated that opinion. I do think that it should be the UN that takes action. I am still holding out hope that diplomatic efforts can be successful.

    My frustration over the past several days has been all of the assumptions and statements about the President’s motives, etc that had no basis in any of his statements.

    Treason? That is messed up.

  108. 108.

    max

    @Mnemosyne: The sarin attack happened on August 21st, and sarin is one of the weapons banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    Syria isn’t a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. [Map.] They are a party to the Geneva Protocol (“The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare”). The full (main) text of which says:

    THE UNDERSIGNED PLENIPOTENTIARIES, in the name of their respective Governments : Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

    DECLARE: That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

    No enforcement mechanism, only applies to war between nations, not civil war, and implicitly allows use of chemical weapons in retaliation for same. Syria is not in violation of any treaty. If we attack them however, without them attacking us, we’re in violation of the UN treaty (with or without Congressional authorization).

    That’s why Obama and Kerry are using the phrase ‘international norms’. That is, they’re arguing that Syria has to comply with the treaty whether they’ve signed it or not. (I’d be curious to see what happens if someone tries to make us comply with the Law of the Sea or the anti-landmine treaty.)

    If we said, ‘we don’t like Assad because he’s a beady-eyed snake and so we’re just going to kill him’ and got Congress to authorize they’d have exactly the same amount of legal support in international law.

    max
    [‘That is, none.’]

  111. 111.

    Debbie(aussie)

    @debbie: but they(we) don’t! That’s the point, there is always some ulterior motive, because we pick and choose when and with whom we interfere. How can we all of a sudden stand on the high ground. Hypocrisy abounds.

  112. 112.

    Mnemosyne

    @Debbie(aussie):

    Actually, chemical weapons use is pretty rare, because most countries have signed the convention banning them. Syria is one of the countries that refused to sign the ban and kept their stocks.

    I know people keep saying the weapon doesn’t matter and dead is dead, but when it comes to chemical weapons, it really does matter, because a lot of them have long-term effects not just on the survivors, but on any future children (mustard gas is a mutagen that causes birth defects years later) and on the surrounding environment. Terrible as they are, traditional bombs and bullets don’t have those same effects.

  113. 113.

    Anoniminous

    @Roger Moore:

    Bet you a virtual lollipop by this time next year nobody will care. The MSM and the other Usual Suspects will have moved on to the current shiny object such as the House races.

    This isn’t the kind of thing that swings elections. Unless Obama screws up. From the announcement today it looks like he won’t.

  114. 114.

    Davis X. Machina

    @Mnemosyne: ‘Monger’ is interesting. It’s the in-class example I use for an unproductive suffix.

    The –monger formant appears as a independent, live noun only in Indian English. It seems not to be an agent noun from a verb *mong…. though back-formations, mostly facetious, are found. Instead, Latin mango, ‘dealer’ seems to be the source (Latin petty businessmen often end in -o, leno, pimp, caupo, shopkeeper, praeco, auctioneer)

    Although you can be a warmonger, fishmonger, ironmonger, rumormonger, hatemonger, fearmonger, scandalmonger or costermonger, powermonger or scaremonger, you can’t be something not already on the list — no cellmongers monging mobile phones, or snarkmongers filling a Twitter feed.

  116. 116.

    TAPX486

    @Cacti: McCain and Graham are already complaining that the limited attack doesn’t go far enough and might vote no. Looks like they will only be satisfied with a full bore invasion. In the House I would bet that most of the GOP will vote no just to embarrass the President on the world stage. If they can’t impeach, then humiliation is the next best thing.

    Theonly real question is how big of mess this will become, both domestically and internationally

  117. 117.

    Chris

    @Roger Moore:

    That’s because they think he really wants to attack and is just looking for an excuse, when it’s really Congress (especially the Republicans) who want an attack without any personal responsibility for it.

    I speculate that Obama was legitimately conflicted about what the best course of action was, which probably explains the unclear messages from the White House. But whatever he tried to do, it wasn’t going to work very well if the Republicans in Congress were going to undercut him at every turn and try to conduct their own foreign policy… hence this latest move. “You think you can run foreign policy better than me? Here’s your chance. And own it this time.” Whatever they end up choosing, they can’t dissociate themselves from it.

  120. 120.

    Bobby Thomson

    What I’ve been looking for — unsuccessfully, so far — is information on how this will affect the G20 meeting, which is due to start in Russia next Thursday, with or without Congressional approval. Shortly before the Rose Garden announcement, according to the AP, “Putin urged President Barack Obama on Saturday not to rush into a decision on striking Syria, but to consider whether strikes would help end the violence and be worth the civilian casualties they would inevitably cause.”

    Why would going to Congress have any effect on that at all? Strikes supported by Congress still kill civilians, and still violate international law.

  121. 121.

    Anoniminous

    @TAPX486:

    Internationally most countries will breath a huge sigh of relief the US isn’t bombing Yet Another Muslim country.

    Domestically? See my comment to Roger Moore, above.

  122. 122.

    Chris

    @TAPX486:

    Looks like they will only be satisfied with a full bore invasion.

    Which the country won’t support. Even Bush was smart enough to know better than to invade Iran after his first two wars.

  123. 123.

    catclub

    This behavior shows that Obama is really smart. He has learned from the experience of both Bush and Clinton.
    (Clinton did various lobbing of missiles aimed at Bin Laden, and it did not gain much.)
    AND Obama’s statement that he is not against all wars, only stupid ones, gains further weight.

    I can hope that a congressional resolution goes nowhere.

    I LOVE that some warmonger is upset that the authority of the presidency to unilaterally bomb other nations is being reduced by this approach. IT IS!

  124. 124.

    catclub

    @Chris: “they can’t dissociate themselves from it.”

    But they will try, and get lots of help trying to do so. “We told him how to do it, but he did it wrong!”

  126. 126.

    Roger Moore

    @Jeremy:

    Oh I wasn’t talking about you being an arm chair quarterback. I was talking about all the critics who constantly contradict themselves.

    Since I was effectively giving them suggestions, I can’t escape the same criticism.

  127. 127.

    Bobby Thomson

    This really should be the UN’s job, but Russia and China both support Syria and keep blocking any action against them. I still don’t think that means the US should act unilaterally, but there don’t seem to be many options open for international actions because of Russia and China.

    You don’t get to murder criminal defendants after a jury acquits them. Follow the legal process. Breaking the law often seems like the right decision in the short term, but it has long term negative consequences for institutions.

  128. 128.

    TAPX486

    @Chris:Yep. Initially I thought that if Obama had laid down the redline about chemical weapons then we would not be in the pickle. As the neocons have run their mouths over the past week, I suspect that no matter what Obama said last year, once Assad used chemical weapons on this scale then the war drums would start beating.

  129. 129.

    fuckwit

    @catclub: What annoys me is that Obama said no such thing. He said he’s maintaining that authority, believes he has it, and doesn’t need Congressional approval. He gives the impression instead that this is something he’s CHOOSING to do because he thinks it makes the country stronger (which I think it does). But ultimately, he doesn’t seem to be yeilding any actual authority.

    He also nicely reassured everyone that he’s not looking for an open-ended war committment, only for what is almost certiainly a symbolic gesture. This is really diplomacy by other means, not anything more.

    There is a deep, deep problem here when Presidents can go to war without Congress– and assert their prerogative to do so–, but I don’t see Obama actually asking for another war. He’s asking for a PR gesture– one that will kill people, but clearly just a PR gesture.

  133. 133.

    Roger Moore

    @Chris:

    I speculate that Obama

    I think this summarizes what I find interesting about the approach. Everybody is trying to divine Obama’s true motives so they can decide how they’re going to respond. Why is he doing it? Is he trying to wimp out of making a decision, trying to force the Republicans’ hands, genuinely trying to rein in the power of the Presidency, or whatever. But his thinking is opaque, so people are left with their own thoughts and their own ideas of what the President does or doesn’t want and how they’re going to respond to that. No matter what he really wants, he’s forcing people to come down off the fence and take sides, and they’re going to have to make their own motivations clear.

  134. 134.

    Hal

    @Mnemosyne:

    know people keep saying the weapon doesn’t matter and dead is dead, but when it comes to chemical weapons, it really does matter,

    The what difference does it make argument I keep seeing has never made sense to me. Bombs destroy, kill, and/or maim, but once they go off, that’s it. Chemical weapons have long lasting effects that may not even be obvious for years to come, and unlock a missile, a relatively small amount can be deadly for massive amounts of people. Look at the potential fatalities from just a few drops of ricin.

    Also, I think there is something different psychologically about someone willing to chemically attack their citizens and watch them suffer, choke, burn continually as opposed to shooting of bombing.

  135. 135.

    Mnemosyne

    @Bobby Thomson:

    You don’t get to murder criminal defendants after a jury acquits them.

    Assad hasn’t been acquitted of anything — the UN inspectors just left the country today and have not yet made their official report. If anything, your metaphor should be that you don’t get to murder criminal suspects before the trial.

    Breaking the law often seems like the right decision in the short term, but it has long term negative consequences for institutions.

    Manipulating institutions to protect your cronies, which is what Russia and China are doing, aslo has long-term negative consequences for those institutions. If you’re doing a criminal trial in front of a judge who you know is a close personal friend of the defendant, do you just shrug your shoulders and let the trial take its course, or do you try to find another courtroom?

  137. 137.

    Roger Moore

    @Mnemosyne:

    Manipulating institutions to protect your cronies, which is what Russia and China are doing, aslo has long-term negative consequences for those institutions.

    Unfortunately, our hands are scarcely clean in the matter, since we’ve been doing essentially the same thing to protect Israel since forever. I’m sure we can rationalize exactly why we stood up for Israel each time, but we’ve made it more than clear that it’s fine to use a Security Council veto to back up an ally come hell or high water.

  138. 138.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    @Mandalay:

    The draft resolution that the Administration’s lawyers have sent to Congress essentially asks Congress to sign a blank check and hand it over to the president. I can’t see that passing the house.

    My god is that brillant. – they will be torn between the lust to blow up brown people and their hatred of all things Obama. The mushroom cloud form the congress critter head explosions will be visible from the west coast.

  139. 139.

    Mnemosyne

    @Roger Moore:

    Oh, I’m not saying we’re not hypocrites, which is another of the many reasons I’m against the US going it alone. But if we’re going to start comparing this to criminal trials, it needs to be pointed out that the “judge” in this case is not exactly an impartial observer weighing the evidence on its merits.

  141. 141.

    Mnemosyne

    @Hal:

    I totally agree. That’s why I think having the US act unilaterally sends completely the wrong message — the message needs to be that, if you use chemical weapons, the entire civilized world will rise up against you because you have broken that rule. If Uncle Sam is the only one who punishes you, meh, so what?

  142. 142.

    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    @Hal: The real problem with chemical weapons, what makes them different, isn’t that it’s worse to die from them. It isn’t even, as Mnemosyne says, that they have long term consequences. So do a lot of other weapons systems that aren’t banned. What makes chemical weapons different is the combination of the following:

    1) They are particularly cheap as area effect weapons go;
    2) They have very limited effectiveness as military weapons in that they are easy for a trained military to protect against and so don’t cause an opposing military much difficulty;
    3) On the other hand they have a much greater effectiveness against civilian targets who have very little in the way of defenses against them, such as taking cover.

    What this means is that proliferation of chemical weapons would dramatically increase the overall civilian death toll of wars, especially civil wars, without providing any appreciable improvement in the ability to fight against military targets. It isn’t that other weapons aren’t used illegally to massacre civilians. It’s that chemical weapons don’t really have any legitimate military use.

    I’m still not sure that it’s worth attacking Syria over, but a world in which it becomes tacitly accepted that countries can use chemical weapons on civilian populations without repercussions is a decidedly nastier world to live in for many of those civilian populations.

  143. 143.

    Mandalay

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    It’s that chemical weapons don’t really have any legitimate military use.

    Well General Peter Pace would disagree with that. Of course he needed an army of lawyers to explain to him why he disagreed, but that’s how our military rolls….

    “White phosphorous is a legitimate tool of the military,” Marine Corps General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a Pentagon news conference November 29, responding to a reporter’s question about the use of white phosphorous in Iraq…

    Defense Department officials have confirmed U.S. troops used white phosphorous munitions against insurgents during Operation Al Fajr in Fallujah, according to a November 30 release by the American Forces Information Service. However, officials refuted media reports that U.S. forces targeted civilians or used the substance as an incendiary weapon. The substance ignites when exposed to air and can cause serious burns.

    “It is used for two primary purposes,” Pace told reporters. “One is to mark a location for strike by an aircraft, for example. The other is to be used — because it does create white smoke — to be used as a screening agent so that you can move your forces without being seen by the enemy.”

    However, “it is not a chemical weapon,” Pace stressed, adding that “it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they are being used for marking and for screening.”

  144. 144.

    Bobby Thomson

    @Mnemosyne: =You don’t break the law. There are legal means of exerting pressure on Russia and the PRC. They may not work, but that doesn’t mean we can just break laws that we find inconvenient.

  145. 145.

    Mnemosyne

    @Bobby Thomson:

    Which is why I said that we need to either put additional pressure on the UN or put it in the hands of another international group, like the Arab League. I’m guessing we will be putting some pressure on both Russia and China at the G20 summit next week.

    But we would be failing in our moral responsibility if we did not put that pressure on and instead said, “Oh, well, not our problem,” and walked away, which is what a lot of people here have been arguing for.

  146. 146.

    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    @Mandalay: White phosphorous isn’t really a chemical agent in the way most things that we think of as “chemical weapons” are. It is very different than something like sarin or mustard gas. It may or may not be a chemical weapon from a legal standpoint (it’s status is kind of ambiguous) but the things I said above don’t really apply to it. The fact that it has other uses (such as signalling, creating smoke screens, and as an incendiary) gives it actual military utility. It’s method of killing when used as an anti-personnel weapon, while gruesome, is also different than those agents that are more typically thought of as chemical weapons.

  148. 148.

    fuckwit

    @Mandalay: Oh bullshit. amazon.com/The-Fire-This-Time-Crimes/dp/1560250712 That was the first Gulf War, depleted uranium weapons causing birth defects, and of coure the Ramallah massacre. Then in the second Gulf War, you can look up the pictures of the WP burn victims (I won’t even Google it to provide a link), and of course Fallujah.

    Our moral authority to lecture anyone on anything was forfeited really at Hiroshima, possibly Tokyo/Dresden before that, and certainly after all the Cold War shit we’ve pulled. Damn shame too; I wish we could have that high ground.

  149. 149.

    GregB

    Former GOP candidate Mitt Romney has expressed his outrage at the Syrian’s reported use of Grey Poupon on civilians.

  150. 150.

    AxelFoley

    @Jeremy:

    @Roger Moore: Disagree. Since Obama became president the emo left, the media, and republicans have always opposed anything the president has said or done. If he does something they want they change positions. This is all about ODS and nothing more.

    Yes, you can say the Administration could have been clearer but this is a tough decision and it’s easy being an arm chair quarterback who doesn’t have to make big time decisions.

    This.

  152. 152.

    Groucho48

    @Cacti:

    On the gripping hand, they just have to stay on vacation until things play out, because no one except DFH’s will call them out on doing so.

  154. 154.

    Bob In Portland

    @Debbie(aussie): No discussion of the impact of the proposed natural gas pipeline from Iran, across Iraq and Syria, and reaching the Mediterranean in Lebanon. That would give Europe an alternative to the Western pipeline proposed to the north across Turkey, or the current Russian one. But competition in capitalism isn’t so good when that competition is competing against you. Not surprising either that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the primary financiers of the al Qaeda rebel freedom fighters in Syria.

Comments are closed.