What happens if the Obama administration’s Syria resolution is defeated in Congress? Many Beltway pundits are breathlessly proclaiming that such an outcome would definitely, immediately, irrevocably transform the president into a lame duck forever and ever.
I think that’s bullshit. Yes, it would be a high-profile defeat. But the Beltway types are prone to inventing neat, round narrative holes before events actually take place and then attempting to pound the square pegs of subsequent facts into them until the entire framework disintegrates — or until events can be spun into vindication of their preconceived narratives. In either case, it’s neither reporting nor honest analysis.
My take is that the proposed Syria intervention is a huge fucking mistake on the part of the Obama administration. I hope the resolution is defeated and contacted my congresscritters yesterday to make this view known.
If the resolution goes down, it would be fair to say Obama stepped on a rake politically — regardless of the merits of the proposal. But the predictions of political doom seem overblown. Clinton still got stuff done and got reelected after his healthcare reform attempt went down in flames, and Bush still managed to keep screwing us royally after he stomped his own pee-pee during the attempt to turn Social Security over to the Wall Street jackals.
But it’s tough to use past presidencies as a yardstick since Obama has been dealing with a Congress that is as chock-full of lunatics as any we’ve seen since before the Civil War. What do y’all think? Will it pass or not? What will the fallout be from either scenario?
The Other Bob
I am trying to figure out Obama on this one without success. Did he count the votes ahead of time? Is he comfortable with defeat? Want it to go down? I am just not sure, but I do know we often underestimate this guy.
ruemara
I think it would go a long way to shivving the unitary executive theory, particularly if he abides by their decision.
Trollhattan
Friday? Check
Syria? Check
Special timmeh in da haus? Check.
One TBogg unit, comin’ up!
Maybe the French will lob some missiles for us. That should make the wingnuts happy as hell.
me
There’ll be whining from McCain who’ll get some attention in the press. Then another shiny thing will distract them.
Napoleon
. . . and he got stuff done after he was impeached.
MikeJ
@ruemara:
What makes you think he won’t?
kindness
If the Attack Syria resolution is defeated some will say it’s all part of the 111th dimension chess Obama is playing and he secretly wanted the resolution to fail (damn Obots) and Fox will loudly scream from every cubicle that it is a HUGE defeat for Obama and we should just impeach the blah Kenyan Userper now (damn dumb fucks).
I say we are just damned. But this time I’ll be happy to be damned as that resolution will not pass. Doesn’t matter what AIPAC does next week.
El Caganer
I don’t think that the President is screwed if the resolution goes down to defeat – at least, not any more screwed than he is by the Republicans already. Can’t see him going ahead with any military action in Syria under those circumstances, though
Napoleon
Oh and to answer the question at the end – it will not pass and it will actually be a blessing for Obama. The fact is with the house full of nuts he isn’t going to get anything of any substance passed anyways.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
I’d be surprised if freedom bombs are voted down. I understand it looks like they may be but I have faith that the people who stand to gain will, in fact, prevail. As they always do.
zombie rotten mcdonald
I think the funny part is how the whole issue being in Congress’ hands has short-circuited the Government Shutdown fanatics. After all, how can you shut down the gubmint if you want to be droppin the gubmint bombs?
catclub
I think as long as the House and senate debate, Assad is VERY unlikely to use chemical weapons. So never end the debate.
If the House and Senate refuse and THEN Assad uses chemical weapons, the next vote will be very quick in favor.
This SHOULD deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. All the more reason for the other guys to use them if they can lay it off on Assad.
NonyNony
Can someone explain to me exactly what Obama was going to get done legislatively over the next few years anyway given the composition of the House? How exactly is he going to get LESS out of the House after a failed Syrian resolution than he would with a successful one?
This is just stupid. The phrase “lame duck” has an actual meaning and it is not relevant to what’s going on here. This is another case of Beltway Journalists in a tizzy because they want a goddamn war and they’re terrified that they’re not going to get it because the President insisted on remembering that we live in a Representative Democracy and not a goddamn dictatorship.
maye
When it gets defeated, he and Cameron can go for a beer.
Tom Levenson
I think it loses and I think it changes the political dynamic not at all.
Villago Delenda Est
Seriously, how is this a game changer? The teatards will still vote down anything Obama proposes, because Obama proposed it, without any regard to the merits of the proposal. It’s all about Obama, as far as they (and our resident mega-troll) are concerned.
What it will do is spell doom for Boner and Cantor. My schadenfreude meter will peg out, again!
Mnemosyne
@kindness:
I can’t really see it as a huge defeat for Obama, given the insanity that’s already been on public display about Syria (who was the congresscritter who was screeching that Syria was just like Fast & Furious?) If nothing else, it gives him yet another way to point to them and say, You see, voters, why nothing’s getting done? There’s another election coming up next year where you can do something about this.
maye
Why can’t Turkey bomb Syria?
gogol's wife
@NonyNony:
The NYTimes had an article yesterday about how “diminished” Obama is. The last three paragraphs were devoted to the astute analysis by Khrushchev’s granddaughter about how the Chinese were offended by Michelle Obama’s not accompanying her husband to meet them.
I really don’t care what Khrushchev’s granddaughter thinks about anything.
catclub
“such an outcome would definitely, immediately, irrevocably transform the president into a lame duck forever and ever.”
Well, at least if he is a Democrat. It would be nice if the next president were also held to obeying the law.
Chris
They’ve been proclaiming him a lame duck ever since Lieberman came out in opposition of the ACA. Speaking just politically, I’d say it’ll help him rather than hurt him if it doesn’t pass. Controversial war averted; Repubs will be screaming about what it did for “our credibility,” but no one gives a shit.
Villago Delenda Est
@catclub:
This all assumes, again, that Assad directly ordered that chem strike.
Facts not in evidence.
Trollhattan
@NonyNony:
It’s opened some weird fracture lines in the Republican congressional delegation. Could they affect 2014 races? Perhaps a few, but I simply don’t know enough to say anything beyond that. In four months we’ll be well on to the next shiny thing, so probably not.
Hunter Gathers
The resolution will fail, no Freedumb Bombs will be dropped.
Walnuts! will have a sad, brogressives, teabaggers, and the 60% of crackers who voted for the Marquis DeMittens will share a moment of gleeful unity, and the Villagers will scream Lame Duck!
No one with a life will give a shit.
I’m personally waiting for Debt Ceiling II – Credit Ratings Boogaloo. It opens earlier than expected, and promises to be twice as dumb as the original.
catclub
@zombie rotten mcdonald: Also the inability of the legislatures to think about more than one thing.
I think Obama could have been investigating and prosecuting torture while fixing the economy.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Great post title, BTW, Hopefully DougJ will post something short and stupid next and entitle it “My Generalization”.
Trollhattan
@Villago Delenda Est:
Thought I read yesterday that the missiles used to deliver the chemicals were too large to have been deployed by the rebels (several times larger than what had been presumed before). Don’t have a cite, though.
Cacti
@maye:
Why can’t Turkey bomb Syria?
Turkey has previously shelled Syrian targets in response to cross border attacks.
Bobby Thomson
If this fails he will get nothing else through Congress.
If this succeeds he will get nothing else through Congress.
catclub
@Villago Delenda Est: I agree, it does assume that.
The Dangerman
@kindness:
Pretty much this; if Benghazi had them cranking it to 11, this will go to at least 12.
It’s going down in the House; if I could figure that out, Obama could figure it out (duh). What’s his game, I have no idea. I do know he always seems to come out smelling like a rose somehow when his opponents end up stepping on their dicks.
Bobby Thomson
@Hunter Gathers: this.
Jockey Full of Malbec
Passes the Senate, loses in the House. Story ends there, unless and until some Black Swan event changes the situation substantially.
Then we all get to live in a 21st century where use of chemical weapons has been politically normalized.
Won’t that be fun?
joes527
@MikeJ: When he asked for the vote, he made some statements about how he didn’t need the vote to act. (100% correct) I think some folks misinterpreted this to mean that he might ignore the results when he was really just giving a nod to the laws on the books.
Politically, this vote became binding the minute he asked for it, and he knew that when he asked.
Chris
@The Dangerman:
Yeah, but who cares? No one gave a shit about Benghazi up to 11, except people who were already determined to be mad at him.
ETA: no Americans died, so even fewer people will care this time around.
maye
@Cacti: why not take the lead on the sarin response?
Villago Delenda Est
@Trollhattan:
Here’s the problem. One on the scene account says this, and another on the scene account says that the delivery means were different.
Which on the scene account do you say is authoritative? The one that lends itself to your theory of the crime?
This is the problem. It’s next to impossible to sort out all these reports and not be concerned with the agenda of those reporting.
Tone in DC
According to certain Very Serious People, the fact that unemployment is above 4% is a Massive Defeat for BHO.
In their universe, Tiger’s poor showing at the Deutsche Bank tournament is also a Major Defeat for the president, as is Oprah’s $30,000 handbag imbroglio.
Scotty
Long term it’s win-win for Obama. One, it gets him off the hook for his prior rhetoric that forced him to propose action with Syria even though no measurable good could come of it. And two, if Assad uses more chemical weapons Obama can say ‘I told you so’. Short term it’ll be a “loss”, but another topic will draw everyone’s interest and his “loss” will soon be forgotten.
Mnemosyne
@catclub:
There were waaay too many powerful Democrats who were ass-deep in those decisions for any prosecutions to happen — I can think of two in particular from California (my current home state), Jane Harman and Dianne Feinstein.
I know people love to think of that decision as “Obama caved to the Republicans,” but there was a lot of pressure from Democrats not to look too hard, either.
Citizen_X
I read this morning how it “made Obama look weak” on the international stage because he went to Congress. You know what I have for those “on the international stage” who think that? Two heaping plates of FUCK and YOU. He ain’t Putin–or Bush (and he’s SUPPOSED to go to Congress in our system)–so fucking deal with it.
MattF
It would be a pretty big defeat for Obama, but I don’t think it would damage the party– most Dems think bombing Syria is a very bad idea. On the other hand, it’s yet another split down the middle for the Republicans. My fearless prediction is that the Dems will recover and maybe even benefit; but it will make everything worse for the Republicans.
Josie
@Tom Levenson: I agree with you. I think it will be defeated in the house. Actually, I think he already knows that and is using Congress as a way to avoid attacking. He will figure out (or has already figured out) another way to influence Assad. That’s my analysis and I’m sticking to it.
? Martin
@maye:
The risk for Syria’s neighbors is quite high as it well may start an actual cross-border war – one centered on where all of the refugees have piled up. Assad isn’t going to attack the US or the UK or France.
piratedan
again, my own opinion here….
I think Obama has noted that we’re bound by treaty to respond to the use of Chemical Weapons in any conflict, per the aforementioned treaties that were signed post WWI and ratified again in the UN post WWII. He also is aware that there is almost no win to be had no matter what his response was to Syria, the state itself has a tottering despot who has secular leanings (say like Saddam Hussein, yet less megalomaniacally inclined). Assad was/is a Russian/Soviet puppet in place to allow them to continue to throw the odd spanner in the works with Israel and Lebanon and Jordan in the region, so he’s a “Tool of opportunity”, more or less. Now he’s on the ass end of the Arab Spring movement and when the secularists couldn’t get him gone, the extremists moved in to partially co-opt the movement, so you have the original secularists that wanted Assad gone (most of them are refugees now) and at least two other fringes in play, a Muslim Brotherhood group and an Al Qeida group, both of whom are better organized that the populist secular originalists. So you have secularists versus the fundamentalists and you have a proxy fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia and a fundamentalists faction fight between Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qeida.
I’d have better luck picking a Super Bowl Winner correctly than figuring out who will continue to fund and fight and “win” in Syria.
So I think Obama looked at that, put together a good faith plan, focused on the removal of the chemical weapons, tried to outline and justify why taking those weapons off the table for any faction made sense. Broadly indicated how he would attempt to leverage that by a bombing plan that would focus on where they were made, where they are stored and what means are used to deliver them. Then stated that he would implement said plan if the American people agreed with him.
Then he put it to Congress and is expecting it to be defeated. Yet he’s acting as a good faith player every step of the way.
If Congress says no, then he points to the fact that he outlined what he would do and his country told him no, no action unilaterally. This kicks it back to the neighborhood players and the UN to either allow this to unfold or determine that there needs to be a broad coalition tasked to handle this. In such a fashion, the US could be a player involved but not taking the lead.
Villago Delenda Est
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?
Cacti
@The Dangerman:
It’s going down in the House; if I could figure that out, Obama could figure it out (duh).
If/when it goes down in the House, you have the GOPers on record as voting against military intervention in the middle east, and intervention whose reasons were far more compelling than anything used to support Iraq, and one that was far more limited in scope. A precedent when the the next GOPer wins the WH and wants to get his war on with Iran.
And Betty Cracker, John Cole, mistermix, and Anne Laurie can all high five each other that thousands of people were gassed without any consequences. Knee jerk isolationism. It’s the new knee jerk warmongering.
jonas
If Congress votes no — as I think is almost certain — the Villagers will cluck their tongues for a while, but I don’t see a long-term downside. I think most Americans will look and say “well, the system worked — for a change.” What could really stir things up is if he goes ahead and launches an attack anyway, or Assad launches another attack. Obama made it clear from the beginning that he’s only asking for a Congressional vote because he wants to be nice, not because he thinks he *has* to (despite his 2008 statements to the contrary, which I presume are no longer operative. Sigh.)
cleek
they’ve already said they just might attack anyway.
The Dangerman
@Chris:
True, but, as someone said above, we about to do the Debt Limit Tango again; no one will give a shit about Syria, but the Debt Limit occurring while we are at least at 12 over Benghazi/Syria, well, it will be fascinating. Obama will probably stick to his positions (no negotiations, go fuck yourselves sideways), Republicans will take it all the way to 11:59:59 threatening to blow it all up…
…and hell if I know what happens then. I have to believe the money behind the Right will yank their choke chain really hard when it comes down to it and the deal will pass. It’ll scare the shit out of the markets, but a deal will get done in the end.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Josie:
So if he wanted to attack Syria, he’d be begging us not to?
WereBear
By putting it on the House, President Obama neutralizes the effect of right wing criticism. Sane people notice that the ones screaming for war then turn around and won’t commit to responsibility for it.
Sort of turns a big spotlight onto how the House can’t do anything sensible.
I see the Syria situation as putting out fires while the defective fuse box is still spitting sparks at the propane tank. Maybe we should put out fires, but can’t we do something about the fuse box?
And it might all be moot, anyway. The only reason ANYONE else cares about the Middle East is their oil, and they are past peak and rapidly looking at global irrelevance. This is yet another reason it’s so unstable right now.
Cacti
@jonas:
or Assad launches another attack
And if/when Assad launches another chemical weapons attack, inaction can be laid entirely at the feet of the Congress.
piratedan
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: he’s the President of the United States and someone just launched an attack using chemical weapons, you think his first message to the world should have been “not my problem, talk to the hand”?
gogol's wife
@piratedan:
Why aren’t you writing for the NYTimes? I learned more from this analysis than from that paper.
sharl
From the senior editor at New York Magazine:
So – snarky hashtag and all – agrees with last part of Tom Levenson’s comment upthread.
the Conster
Any time you can get those House nutjobs to go on the record it’s a win, because they really really really just want to blame Obama for everything that happens. I can imagine them all right now wondering themselves what Obama really wants so that they can vote the opposite. I know I’m an Obot, but I think Obama is really just fucking with them now by asking for their support, and this whole Syria gambit is more about smoking the Republicans out than Assad.
Bill E Pilgrim
@cleek: Yep. Kerry said that Obama “had the right” to attack whether he got approval or not. Lots of indications, from others also. That may be changing, but last week it was a strong message they were sending– we might do it either way.
The Dangerman
@piratedan:
I read someplace there’s at least 120 different, quasi-independent, militias getting their civil war on over there; it’s Somalia on steroids.
joes527
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I don’t know, but if he came out in his speech and said: “I was wrong. We shouldn’t be bombing Syria” then the House would pass the resolution with a large margin.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Villago Delenda Est:
I’m not sure what your point is?
But you generally have good ones, so I figured I’d just ask.
(And thanks for reminding me that I seriously need to get my hands on the Godfather BluRay set).
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@piratedan: Step me through the 11 dimensional chess here, chief. When it gets too many moves in, I lose track of who wanted to do what before we started down the rabbit hole.
JPL
Obama’s statement on Tuesday will point out that the red line was by an international treaty not by him. He will also say that the Romney campaign agreed with him on this point, “in fact, Paul Ryan said so during a debate”
The statement will not help. The American public’s weary of dropping more bombs.
@Trollhattan:
this
elmo
I do know one thing, though – if his war resolution fails, and people see how weak and ineffective he is against an intransigent Congress, there’s just no possibility of his being reelected.
Betty Cracker
@Cacti:
You know what? Fuck you. Really. Fuck you, you sanctimonious, tiresome, troll-ass shithead. If you believe the people who oppose bombing Syria — a majority of Obama supporters, by the fucking way — are bloodthirsty monsters who will celebrate the death of innocent civilians, you’re just too goddamned dumb to bother with anymore. Go occupy the other side of the T&H Commemorative Shitstain Troll coin. Asswipe.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Tom Levenson: I think so too.
I don’t mind if Obama ends up not attacking Syria because Republicans said not to. Who cares?
He tends to listen to them at least as much as to “the left”, I think more so. In any case if they’re by whatever combination of opportunism and duplicity the anti-war crowd on this one, fine, if it works.
His political fortunes at this point are so beside the point that they’re pointless. Is the point.
@elmo: Eggzactly.
NonyNony
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
You mean unlike the 20th century where the use of chemical weapons was normalized by the chemical weapon attacks that Iraq subjected Iran to in the 1980s? Chemical weapons supplied to Iraq by the US government? Yup – that sure opened the door for everyone to use chemical weapons didn’t it?
The rhetoric around this is so goddamn stupid. If Assad “gets away with” using chemical weapons here there will be no precedent because the current precedent is selective enforcement if the international community feels like doing something about it. That’s what the fucking precedent has been since countries started worrying about chemical weapons in the 1800s. The world is not going to suddenly shift into a “new paradigm” if the international community decides it doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Syrian rebels any more than it did when the international community decided it didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Iranians.
There are good reasons to do something about Assad’s use of chemical weapons here and there are good reasons to do nothing at all. But the idea that not “punishing Assad” would be”a paradigm shifting precedent” is just a lie spread by people who know better and repeated by people who don’t. (As if Assad is the one that would be punished by dropping bombs on infrastructure anyway – it would mostly be people who work at the airports and who use the roads who would be taking the “punishment” for the actions of his military. But that’s another argument that falls onto the “good reasons to do nothing at all” side.)
fuckwit
Oh fucking come on, stupid “news” people. Really? This Congress has TORPEDOED EVERYTHING THIS PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO DO, at every available opportunity. And, AFAICT, has succeed at that almost every time.
So what the FUCK does it matter if they kill this resolution too? You goddamned morons. This changes nothing. This Congress hates this President and has consistently said NO to everything, even keeping the damn government itself running. Cabinet officials, judges, everyone gets filibustered or obstructed. Shit, how many times have they voted to repeal the ONE goddamned thing the President actually did manage to get through the previous Congress? They are insane.
OMG OMG this changes everything if it fails! Lame duck lame duck! SHUT THE FUCK UP. When this gets defeated, it changes nothing. This President has been treated like dogshit by this Congress since day 1. If they say no to this it just means… business as usual, except this time they’ll even vote NO on war, somethign they’d otherwise have throbbing purple-veined boners for. Which is an amazing level of petulance in and of itself.
Mike E
mistermix,…is that you, wearing a Betty mask?
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
You know what? Fuck you. Really. Fuck you, you sanctimonious, tiresome, troll-ass shithead. If you believe the people who oppose bombing Syria — a majority of Obama supporters, by the fucking way — are bloodthirsty monsters who will celebrate the death of innocent civilians, you’re just too goddamned dumb to bother with anymore. Go occupy the other side of the T&H Commemorative Shitstain Troll coin. Asswipe.
Go beat your drums, play with your chickens, and listen to some John Lennon you gray haired, smelly hippie.
Tripod
Obama will be deposed and all record of him will be expunged.
Duh.
joes527
@Betty Cracker: too restrained.
Villago Delenda Est
@Betty Cracker:
Word.
Svensker
@MattF:
I’m just concerned that Obama and Kerry sound like crazed idiots on this issue (Kerry said that the “bad” rebels will win if we don’t help the “good” rebels whom we are “vetting” WTF?) and that, if this goes down to defeat, they’ll team up to do something else dumb in Syria. Do not understand in the slightest what the Prez and Kerry are doing here.
Villago Delenda Est
@fuckwit:
If Obama proposed using Sarin on the vermin of the Village, I would support him completely.
Bob In Portland
Since the CIA is the force behind this, I’m guessing it will pass. Congress just doesn’t go against the CIA.
elmo
@NonyNony:
I expect you to offer me a cigarette after that.
And I don’t even smoke.
Really, bravo.
The Dangerman
@Betty Cracker:
You forgot “prick”.
piratedan
@The Dangerman: well it’s breaking down an awful lot like Somalia and even some parallels with Afghanistan as people battle for local control, which means little coordination between groups, even though there is a common cause. If Assad was “more” ruthless, he’d start to set them off against each other and from what I’ve read, some of that is happening but not enough to make a difference as those folks that oppose him have a lot easier time of finding “reinforcements” than Assad does.
Regardless of how the House votes, what worries the most is the likely dissemination and use of the chemical weapons by folks that have shown that their not huge on civil rights, liberties and show little discretion in their targets….and that can mean every from the Assad Government to Al Qeida….
Cacti
Betty/Cole/mistermix/Anne Laurie:
“All we are saaaaying, is give peace a chaaaaance!”
Syrian civilians:
*choking sounds
Josie
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I think he knows, just as we do, that the Republicans in the House will vote against anything he proposes. There is no question in my mind that such knowledge plays into his planning politically.
Villago Delenda Est
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
Well, see NonyNony’s post at 67.
The idea that not bombing Assad will somehow magically “normalize” the use of chemical weapons is rather silly. This country actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against the evil Iranians in the 80’s. So we have no moral high ground occupied here.
Napoleon
@Betty Cracker:
Well put
piratedan
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: in short, he’s doing what the job requires…. I know, I know, it’s been so long since we’ve had someone in office who actually believes that laws and rules matter, but there it is…
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
The idea that not bombing Assad will somehow magically “normalize” the use of chemical weapons is rather silly. This country actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against the evil Iranians in the 80′s. So we have no moral high ground occupied here.
We had a history of Jim Crow and slavery. So we had no moral high ground to condemn South African apartheid.
Reagan was right.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
My prediction is as follows: Congress blocks action in Syria. Obama pulls a Cameron and gracefully agrees to honor the will of the people. The GOP loses some support from their buddies in AIPAC and the defense industry. The splits in the Republican party get bigger. In regions where there is a high concentration of Balloon Juice readers, popcorn shortages occur, futher damaging the movie theater industry.
Bobby Thomson
@piratedan:
No we aren’t. Not unilaterally. We aren’t even allowed to.
Barry
Betty Cracker: “My take is that the proposed Syria intervention is a huge fucking mistake on the part of the Obama administration. I hope the resolution is defeated and contacted my congresscritters yesterday to make this view known. ”
If I wanted to f_ck Obama, and had a magic wand, I’d wave it and wish that Congress would vote for all the war that he’s asking for.
I can’t see this ending well.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
Well, if SOMEONE launches a chemical attack somewhere in Syria.
The problem is that Assad may be a disagreeable man, but he’s not a fucking Bond villain.
Mike E
@Svensker:
Be careful, now; SkyTroll has become aware, it may see you!
Seriously, I need a damn nym card just to keep up with all the cyber dogs who roll around in shit in these parts…
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
Can we invite them over to the House Chamber and do a Two-Fer?
Original Lee
@me: They’re not done teasing him about losing at online p-word card game during the hearings with Kerry yet.
Villago Delenda Est
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:
Ok, now we’re talking serious existential shit here…
joes527
Must. Not. Feed ….
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
We’re having a chemical weapons party this weekend. Hazmat costumes, gas masks, lots of chemicals. It’s going to be a blast.
piratedan
@gogol’s wife: ty for the sentiment… but hell, I’m just regurgitating what I read and trying to put pieces together with some sense of context and history based on who’s said what and what they’ve done. Doesn’t mean that I still couldn’t be incredibly bleeping wrong by giving too much weight to certain behaviors and statements and actions with my own personal biases.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
Shitty analogy, and you’ve made it before.
Why do you want to get a war on so bad? Because Obama is the front man for it?
weaselone
@NonyNony:
German firms actually played the key role in the development of Iraq’s chemical weapons program.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@piratedan: So he wants war or doesn’t?
Anoniminous
Domestically, this too shall be lost within the ever continuing dangling of shiny objects by the press. In a year most people who do remember – a small minority – won’t care and the votes of those who do care will affect the 2014 elections not at all.
Foreignestically*: most nations will breathe a huge sigh of relief. Nothing much will happen until the UN inspectors finish their report, and then we’ll see. My guess is the Obama Administration will pursue some kind of response via the UN if the Assad government is proven to have deployed chemical weapons, if it turns out one of the rebel groups was responsible the report will be shelved.
* :-)
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Josie:
There’s no evidence of this. Well into his second term, he’s acted like the retarded kid trying to hug all over the cool Republicans.
Villago Delenda Est
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Yup, lots of fun.
One of the things about chemical weapons (particularly nerve agents like Sarin) is that it forces your opponent to seriously degrade his military capabilities in order to preserve his force. Wearing those chemsuits really puts a kink into your John Wayne impulses. All the sudden you not only worry about atropine supplies, you worry about heat prostration. The pace of operations has to slow because soon troops are dropping like flies because of the measures needed to prevent them from dropping like flies.
Chyron HR
@weaselone:
If only Obama had cracked down on IG Farben instead of “looking forward, not back”…
piratedan
@Bobby Thomson: not claiming that he would act unilaterally, to my understanding, there are 11 other countries that are supposedly in favor of what he’s proposed as a plan of action. My best guess is that he’s buying time to get support (again as a good faith player) both at home and abroad, why else put it to Congress since other folks (from within and outside of his administration) have already stated that he has the authority to act unilaterally if he so chooses.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Villago Delenda Est: That’s why we waited until after summer.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
Shitty analogy
I agree, you keep dredging up that worthless “we have no moral standing because of ______ in the 1980s”.
So when does or doesn’t this arbitrary standard of yours apply?
Does it also apply to: We have no moral standing to chide anyone on women’s rights, we used to not even let them vote.
Or: We have no moral standing to oppose Israeli settlements in the West Bank, we dispossessed the Native Americans of their lands, and shunted them off to reservations.
And I might as ask you, why are you so reflexively isolationist? Do violations of chemical weapons bans not bother you unless it’s your family getting gassed?
replicnt6
@Betty Cracker: Eloquently stated. Thing is, at least T&H knows he’s a troll. Which puts him one up on Cacti.
joes527
@Svensker: Whatever happens, my opinion of Kerry (which wasn’t sky high to begin with) hasn’t been improved. I never understood how the was the only person on the planet who could possibly fill the role. Pulling him out of the Senate was a huge risk, and it was sheer luck that we dodged the bullet on that one.
Bobby Thomson
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
You really are aptly named.
max
Will it pass or not?
No clue. The appetite on the hill for blowing up foreigners seems endless. (‘When’s a good time for bombing people? ANY TIME is a good time for bombing people!’) I would guess it would pass the House with difficulty, mostly with D votes, and pass the Senate easily because bipartisanship about killing furrners.
What will the fallout be from either scenario?
If it gets defeated, and Obama goes along with that, nothing much. It’ll be forgotten by regular people soon enough. The neo-cons will cry wet salty tears.
If it gets defeated and Obama goes ahead, it’s impeachment time. (‘When is a good time for the Republican House to impeach a Democratic president? Why, ANY TIME is a good time to impeach a Democratic president!’)
If it goes through, then the occupation of Syria officially goes on the menu and has to be presumed to be coming either sooner (a year?) or later (as soon as the next Republican gets into office). Also, 2014 will be a wave year for the Republicans.
max
[‘I’m gonna say that picking Kerry for SoS should be officially downgraded to ‘bad call’.’]
Teresa
Congress should make the decision, with mature and serious debates. Alas, we have to deal with the congress we have rather than work with the congress we wish we could have.
Only in today’s times does Congress actually doing it’s job mean the president is pussy or something.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Bobby Thomson: Thank you. So are you.
dmbeaster
Sadly, I expect some form of watered down authorization to pass. The forces for war are just too strong in this country. I am against it simply because I do not see it doing any good at this time. The idea that some punishment should be meted out in response to a chemical attack is the one justifiable rationale for doing something, provided that the response could accomplish something. But it can’t, so this justification does not pull enough weight in this instance.
Sadly, there is a difference between carnage and mayhem in civil wars as opposed to between nations. A chemical attack by one nation against another pegs a lot higher on the threat line, and there is also more that can be done about it. Put another way, I doubt that any country contemplating use of WMD is going to feel emboldened to target neighboring countries with WMD because no one found a good response to its use inside Syria as part of its civil war. Sadly, this i more like Darfur in which it is very hard to put an end to ruthless killings, and harder to get consensus for it. The only meaningful solution to the actual problem — mass killings in the ongoing civil war — is boots on the ground to restore order. No one is advocating that, so none of the bombing advocates has a realistic solution to ending the killing.
I think Obama simply effed up here, and is surrounded with those for whom military response is the default position. I would like to see the authorization fail, but I doubt that it will change much even if it does. Rather than spinning it as an example of the country sobering up to knee-jerk military intervention, it will be spun as Obama’s mistake since he should have just done it unilaterally like other “strong” presidents. If anything, it might serve as an example of not seeking authorization in the future if it fails here. We will remain wired to military intervention as the ready “solution,” even though here it would solve nothing.
sharl
Because it bears repeating…
From Villago Delenda Est:
The logistical challenges of employing CBW countermeasures never get the attention they deserve.
Anoniminous
@Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:
That’s a shrewd analysis.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Villago Delenda Est:
Just be grateful this didn’t happen during the summer movie blockbuster season. Can you imagine the strain it will cause movie goers if theaters were forced to raise popcorn prices EVEN MORE?! At least now, fewer people are affected.
piratedan
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I don’t honestly know. I think he’s appalled by the use of chemical weapons (regardless if it was Assad or one of the rebel opposition groups) and if he could get them out of circulation, he would. By what means is a damn sight tricker and how much knowledge does he have about how many weapons are left, where are they stored and their subsequent delivery systems matter. In his statement, he did state that he wants to reduce the capacity for anyone to deliver those weapons… if another agency was tasked with doing so, I don’t think he’d have an issue with that, but as has been stated before…. who? a UN Coalition? The Saudis? The Iranians? The Russians?
joes527
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’ve made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Bobby Thomson
@Cacti: We didn’t blow up South Africa. We didn’t blow up Israel. Analogy fail. Claiming that opposing a military intervention is the same thing as head-in-the-sand isolationism is just tired cold war bullshit, and fuck you very much for saying it.
Redshift
@jonas:
But in the past couple of days, he has clearly stated that he doesn’t consider the congressional vote “symbolic.” The way I put the before-and-after statements together is that he maintains the right to launch such an attack without approval from Congress, but having asked for approval, does not intend to ignore the result.
Villago Delenda Est
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Yeah, there’s another problem…summer is your prime time for offensive military operations, at least in temperate zones.
There are always tradeoffs. Which is why US military doctrine on chemical warfare is defensive in nature, and our internal propaganda (at least during the cold war) was that the Soviets considered chem warfare to be an offensive combat multiplier.
The fact is, it’s a total pain in the ass. As a surprise first strike weapon, it has its uses..assuming the wind doesn’t shift. There’s one of those shaky assumptions again. It might be a weapon of desperation…or a great way to fly a false flag, particularly in a situation like that in Syria. The assumption that only Assad has access to this stuff, and only he can order its use, and some fuckup didn’t happen, is just…not realistic. It’s more like wishful thinking on the part of some people to get a fuckin’ war on!
shelly
I’ve never understood the eagerness to declare a President a ‘lame duck’ practically the day after the second inaugaration. As far as I’m concerned the President’s got a job to do right up to when he has tea with the new guy coming into the White House.
Cacti
@Bobby Thomson:
We didn’t blow up South Africa. We didn’t blow up Israel.
Que?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Villago Delenda Est: Look, we’re just doing our little part to normalize chemical weapons. You’re welcome to join us.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Villago Delenda Est:
And I’m still not sure why our current and future actions must be limited (or even informed) by policies held by the corrupt, soul-destroying Reagan/Bush regime before I was even old enough to vote.
We have weapons and other capabilities now that we didn’t back then. And after 30+ years of globalization, we’re all more entangled than ever.
That said, IMO this is all moot– you folks won.
This being a democracy, it’s all academic unless something happens to change the current state of things. (I wouldn’t support Obama striking Syria if Congress votes no, BTW).
Anoniminous
@Villago Delenda Est:
Exactly why chemical weapons weren’t used on the Ostfront in WW 2.
Sarin, etc. are strategic weapons. They are often called “a poor man’s nuke” because they traverse the same Game Plan: you dump sarin, your opponent dumps sarin and after a couple of iterations both sides are:
1. Dead
2. Dealing with large numbers of people with severe neurological damage
3. Feverishly trying to decontaminate thousands of square miles of territory, military equipment, civilian infrastructure, & so on — and mostly failing
Josie
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: That is a really ugly analogy on several levels and an incorrect one, IMHO.
Tone in DC
@Villago Delenda Est:
LULz.
We still have expensive organic bread and tasty (completely non-elitist) mustard for sammiches.
elmo
@Cacti:
You know perfectly well that “Believing military action would be fruitless and counterproductive” =\= “Happy to see children die in the streets,” and it’s trollish, inflammatory, and disgusting for you to claim otherwise. Until you offer an apology for that grossly offensive comment, there’s really no reason to engage with you in good faith.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
There’s one of those shaky assumptions again. It might be a weapon of desperation…or a great way to fly a false flag, particularly in a situation like that in Syria. The assumption that only Assad has access to this stuff, and only he can order its use, and some fuckup didn’t happen, is just…not realistic. It’s more like wishful thinking on the part of some people to get a fuckin’ war on!
Ahhh…now it makes sense. You’re a Syrian chemical weapons truther. Surely you must have some good evidence to suggest that any of the rebel groups were capable of launching a well-coordinated chemical assault, with munitions carrying up to 50 liters of Sarin each, and from areas controlled by the Syrian Army.
Trollhattan
Noone expects the
Spanish InquisitionJewish hall-stormers.http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/06/20358782-flipping-the-script-on-israel?lite
PeakVT
@shelly: Once a president is a lame duck, our lazy media no long feels guilty about not doing the job it hasn’t been doing, which is the hard work of covering actual governance. Campaign gossip and horse-race calling is easy.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
It’s a total pain in the ass to deploy against an opposing army that presumably has all of the necessary safety equipment at hand. It’s pretty much a “gimme” to deploy against civilian populations, especially if you can do it from a distance, because what are they going to be able to do to retaliate?
Which seems to be what happened here. I have a notion that it was a rogue commander on the Syrian side who did it and not Assad himself, which if true would mean that things are even more fucked-up than we feared since it would mean that discipline is breaking down on the Syrian side.
NobodySpecial
@elmo:
Saving you some effort here. Pie filter works better.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
How do you know:
1. there was a sarin attack
2. IF so, it was by the Assad government military
I note the UN inspectors have yet to finish their investigation.
catclub
@Trollhattan: “will storm the halls” Will AIPAC call it Stormfront?
Mike E
@Villago Delenda Est: The Invisible Hand touches all.
Villago Delenda Est
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
It’s mainly because for PRACTICAL military reasons, chemical warfare is not useful, for the reasons I’ve stated.
Now, as a political weapon, yeah, it might accomplish some political objectives. Chemical weapons are terrible. They cause agonizing, slow deaths, particularly if used on the unaware and unprepared. Like the civilian population of a government controlled suburb of Damascus.
Now, here’s the problem. The “International Community” in general looks at Iraq/Iran and says “why do the Americans have their panties so much in a bunch NAO?” The fact is, Saddam didn’t “normalize” chem weapon use in the 80’s, and not punishing Assad (for a crime he may not be guilty of, but he’s our Hitler this week) will no more “normalize’ chem weapons use than Saddam did. Because chem weapons work as planned once, then your adversary prepares for them, and then the effect is lost, and everyone just gives up on them because they’re too much of a fucking pain in the ass to deal with. They actually prevent you from getting on with your war. Which we can’t have.
Cacti
@elmo:
You know perfectly well that “Believing military action would be fruitless and counterproductive” =\= “Happy to see children die in the streets,” and it’s trollish, inflammatory, and disgusting for you to claim otherwise.
I don’t believe I ever used the word “happy”. Don’t care enough to see anything done about it? Absolutely. Hell, we’ve even been told that nothing should be done about chemical attacks on civilians because of Food Stamps. If that isn’t knee jerk isolationism of the first order, what the hell is?
And if the authorization vote goes down, which it looks like it will, there will be a celebratory orgy from the 4 front pagers I mentioned, with a token mention of “of course we feel terrible for the people who were gassed”. Bully. Feeling bad for them will certainly prevent future chemical attacks.
Ahh says fywp
@Jockey Full of Malbec: soooo… Why does Syria matter while the Iran-Iraq war doesn’t count.
Yadda yadda bombs to drop, production for use.
Nobody wants the truth-we’re a militarized police state a la Austro-Hungarian empire circa WWI. We say we’re better than the Prussians, but it’s just a matter of degree and in our hubris, we’ve actually got the inhabitants of our client states to hate us more.
Visit central europe or just read Good Soldier Shvejk and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
scav
@ruemara: A lot of his actions can seemingly be clarified by his explicitly following the rules as set down and traditionally practiced.
And what @piratedan: said, and pushing Repubs to juggle their Anything-but-what-Obama-says position with their Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-the-Brownfolks eternal tango against the backdrop of the polling on this particular issue. Interesting, but hardly dooming given the Congress he’s been dealt.
MikeJ
@Bobby Thomson:
We didn’t blow up South Africa because “we” were on the wrong side. It’s not like Reagan wanted democracy there. Because we didn’t help, South Africans themselves had to remain committed to violence. Mandela was offered release from prison time and time again if he would renounce violence, and he rightly said no.
fuckwit
@Trollhattan: Uh-huh. And now the truth comes out. Who’s driving all this warmongering? Israel, natch. But how stupid of them. Why would Israel want to help AlQueda-affiliated Islamic jihadi “rebels” win? If they actually did, seems to me it’d be the worst thing possible for Israel. But here the AIPAC lobbyists are, storming the halls of Congress demanding an attack.
BobS
@maye:@Cacti: “Turkey has previously shelled Syrian targets in response to cross border attacks”- that themselves were arguably in self-defense, occurring only after the Turkish government armed and allowed members of the Syrian opposition to traverse the border without interference.
Cacti
@Ahh says fywp:
Why does Syria matter while the Iran-Iraq war doesn’t count
Okay, for the chronology impaired…
The international agreement that is implicated in this attack is the Convention on Chemical Weapons of 1993.
And the Iran-Iraq war happened in __________?
And Ronald Reagan and Saddam Hussein are both __________?
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
How do you KNOW, with metaphysical certitude, that those circumstances were precisely the ones involved?
You don’t. The UN team hasn’t reported. There are also reports that some rebel groups were putting together the wherewithal to make chem weapons attacks.
We cannot know, with absolute certainty, what the fuck is going on over there. This is what we people actually trained in waging warfare call “the fog of war”. It’s everywhere. You can only best guess what is going on. We also have to be very careful, particularly in situations like Syria, just how much the reports seem to lend themselves to our worst fears and how the reports may have been designed for precisely that.
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
Doctors Without Borders reported that they treated thousands of civilians for exposure to a neurotoxic agent on 8/21. Oxfam also says that chemical attacks have occurred on civilians.
Is it your position that respected NGOs like Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam are lying on behalf of the US government? If so, please explain your rationale for believing that.
Most of the current indications are that it was launched from rockets that the rebels do not have access to from areas that are currently held by the Syrian Army.
The UN inspectors did not arrive, look around, say, “Well, nothing happened here,” and leave. They put on their hazmat suits and collected samples. How does that fit with your theory that the attack never happened?
Donut
I forget who I first saw make this observation – but really, in the United States, outside the Beltway, who the fuck cares if Obama loses the House vote? It’s not as if the House hasn’t obstructed every thing since 2010, anyway. They never give him whatever he wants, regardless.
A losing vote looks really bad, IMHO, only outside the US. Internally, US politics won’t be changed one fucking iota. Plus, the way the House is trending, it’s not entirely un-possible (sic, a la Ralphie Wiggum) that their majority will be severely weakened next year. Obama has lots of time and opportunity to get shit done, if that is the case. Bohener is a piece of shit and the least effective Speaker, ever, no matter what else is going on. His chances of being effective would increase if his majority is weakened in Nov, 2014, ironically.
“Meh” is my reaction the politics of these votes.
That said, I hope Obama loses on this. I think it’s a bad idea overall, and especially for the US to act unilaterally, and if he really wants this done, Obama has got to go to the UN and make the case to the entire world community. I know Russia and China are likely to block any Security Council res, but that’s really what should be going on. There is no existential threat to US security – not that I have seen articulated, anyway. And absent that, if he moves forward unilaterally, with only limited allies supporting, and without a UN mandate, I think he loses credibility as someone elected to end wars, as he said earlier today.
My 2 cents…
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Villago Delenda Est:
I agree with you that CW are almost militarily useless.
I do wonder which countries will be gassing their civilian populations come 2025, 2035, 2045. Delivery systems will be cheap and plentiful enough by then (3D-printed, fist-size robot drones that cost under $1000/per to make, for example) that almost any government will be able to get their hands on them.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the countries currently backing up Syria in the UN are countries like China and Russia, who have shown a proclivity for slaughtering their own people en masse whenever they get too uppity.
Anoniminous
@Cacti:
And the US signed a treaty forbidding the use of military force except in cases of being directly attacked or under UN sanction in _____?
elmo
@Cacti:
No. You didn’t use the actual word “happy.” And if you’re going to hide behind that thin reed, and pretend that “high-fiving” isn’t an expression of happiness, then you remain beyond the reach of civil discourse.
Or you could acknowledge that you went too far and apologize like an adult.
MazeDancer
Americans don’t want war.
If Mr. Obama had ordered the strikes, without consulting Congress, the political fall-out would be all the media and most of the voters against him. Since he can’t really do much about the media, he is left with trying to save face, hold up America’s commitment against chemical weapons, yet not get the US into a war no one wants.
Doesn’t matter how much John Kerry or any administration official talks about anything. Or even makes sense about how we can’t allow monsters to do whatever we want. Because the problem is we let a monster do what ever he wants – Cheney via Bush – and people will not let that happen again.
Don’t see how Mr. Obama could have gotten a better political “victory” that what he’s getting.
FlipYrWhig
Two options:
(1) the vote fails, Fox does a victory lap, and Obama gives a rousing speech about how this is precisely what the Constitution envisioned when it came to warmaking: Congress, not the president, making the crucial determination, yadda yadda yadda.
(2) the vote succeeds because horse-trading has succeeded in narrowing the scope of the action, Fox does a victory lap, and Obama gives a speech about how the Congress has spoken and he’s acting within the parameters they’ve set, which is in accordance with the Constitution that makes us a great nation, yadda yadda yadda.
Ahh says fywp
Why is nobody talking about the fact that Assad is one of those West friendly minority group dictators and tge rebels are not only calling for the death of his ethnic group but killing Christians, pinning the war pigs and the GOP neatly between their bank rollers and buddies and their rabid constituents?
Brilliant if evil, iow.
But yeag, lets go on pretending it’s sunni v shia as if wnd & freep haven’t noticed.
cleek
@piratedan:
i’d like to see where the treaties say that.
what i’ve read of them says nothing of the sort.
Villago Delenda Est
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
This is not, unfortunately, an unlikely scenario.
CW has political uses…just ask anyone subjected to pepper spray/”riot control” agents. That is chemical warfare…against unprepared, unprotected targets. Which is why police forces get upset if people show up at demonstrations with gas masks. They’re prepared. The police use of chem weapons has been mostly countered. Shit. We’re going to have to resort to something else to get those dirty fucking hippies off the plaza.
Notching it up to nerve agents is something that authoritarians will do to punish dissenters.
scav
@Donut: Wouldn’t the President actually “obeying” Congress and the bulk of the world’s opinion instead of just blythly hyperpowering his weight around using firepower prove rather refreshingly original, and dare I say, democratic? A Signal of Weakness that the President of these Uniquely Blessed by GOD Uuuuunited Staaaaaates isn’t in fact the Single Personal Oligarch of All? Depends on your mindset.
catclub
@Jockey Full of Malbec: “who have shown a proclivity for slaughtering their own people en masse whenever they get too uppity. ”
Heck, I am surprised there has been so little mention of that Theatre in Grozny(?) Moscow(?).
They gassed the people they were rescuing. And killed bunches of them.
danimal
I think Obama is playing 11 dimension chess and is allowing the Tea Partiers an opportunity to say “Fkuc You” to the president without destroying the world economy via a debt ceiling crisis. The GOP will almost certainly over-reach in negotiating the budget/debt ceiling discussions and paint themselves in a corner. The result will be a fairly straight-forward budget and debt ceiling deal after they realize they have no public support for creating an economic disaster.
What’s not to love? Obama gets out of his self-imposed commitment to an unwinnable war, the Tea Partiers get a chance to unleash their primal scream, the debt ceiling will be passed without the zoo animals flinging too much poo and perhaps some real legislating can get slipped in while the GOP smokes a cigarette after climaxing on their circle jerk. It’s all good.
fuckwit
Finally, I just had a reallly blue-sky thought, that is 100% correct, but will get mocked as totally impractical, and rightly so.
The only long-term solution to the violence and turmoil in the Middle East, and Africa, is to erase all the stupid colonial national boundaries that were forced on them, and which make no fucking sense at all.
Most of the countries of the middle east and Africa have borders that have nothing to do with the ethnic, cultural, and historical nature of the people who actually live there.
They should be allowed to break up into smaller countries, bound by a common regional federation or league.
Iraq should be 3 countries. Syria should be at least 2. Israel should be 2 and almost everyone by now acknowledges that. Most of west Africa should be composed of much smaller countries, with completely different borders, and a powerful African Federation unifying them and giving them economic and political strength.
The difficulty is that national borders are usually set by war, if not by colonial imposition. In their natural state, most borders sort themselves out by fighting (even ours… especially ours). But there are entrenched powers now in the colonial states of the Middle East and Africa, and they are willing to resort to desperate measures to maintain them.
The really hard problem is: could there be a peaceful, orderly alternative to this? Could some set of states sit down, and negotiate and horse-trade their way around this? Yeah, I sound like John Lennon here, but I really don’t know any other way to do this without epic bloodshed.
It’s a puzzle that could only be sorted out by all the players sitting down and doing some hard dealmaking. Here, a new nation of Kurdistan gets created from parts of Turkey and Iraq, a part of Syria becomes part of Turkey in exchange, or gets split off into its own country, the southern Iraqis get their own state or get affiliated with Iran, etc etc.
It’d be a huge upheaval, there will be winners and losers, and many would rather that not happen. But my point is: it is happening, and it is going to happen, and there is no way to avoid it happening. By default it will happen with bloodshed, but maybe it’s at least worth suggesting that there might be an alternative to that. The only question is: how many millions of people will suffer and die before it all gets resolved?
And yes, I’m realistic to already know the answer to that question: a lot.
IowaOldLady
OT but Simon and Schuster is apparently publishing a book on Paul Revere by Rush Limbaugh. I’m choking, I’m so annoyed.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
1. Read this:
2. “Most indications” are exactly that: indications. And why the UN inspectors were sent to Syria and have been given access by the Syrian government.
3. For safety, suiting up to inspect for possible nuclear, chemical, or biological contamination is standard protocol. It implies only that the site(s) are suspected of being contaminated.
IowaOldLady
And it’s for children! Jesus Christ, that out to be criminal.
Botsplainer
What’ll happen? Emo left liberals will wring their hands about wanting to do something, but will also be smug about the example set by reflexive antiwar thinking. Sally Struthers will raise funds for white concerned people using images of deformed Syrian children, music played behind by Sarah Mclachlan. Glenn Greenwald will take the final few faps to finish rubbing one out, and will segue to another reason why Obama is history’s greatest monster, and the teatrds and firebaggers will worship at his feet.
Assad and Putin will giggle, Assad pounding neighborhoods with chemical weapons, Putin killing off another few journalists with polonium.
Snowden will get blown by yet another hooker while eating caviar and lighting cigarettes with 100 ruble notes. Assange will grope some feckless diplomat.
And putative presidents Santorum, Paul and Cruz will delight in the upsurge of their chances for 2016, confident that their campaign pledges to reform the NSA will gain wide traction among the dudebros.
Villago Delenda Est
OT, but latest NEWSMAX! headline teaser:
Oh, a war criminal wannabe and a war criminal? Probably bemoaning Obama’s “weakness” of putting vile Rethuglican shitstains on the spot over Syria?
No thanks.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Ahh says fywp:
If you truly, seriously believed what you are typing at me…
…you wouldn’t be typing it at me.
piratedan
@cleek: guess it depends on the interpretation of “respond”. The use of chemical weapons is a violation of Chemical Weapons Convention of 1973 and has its foundations from the Geneva Protocols in the mid 1920. As such it’s treated as a violation of international law.
So you’re absolutely right in thinking that there’s nothing that the US is on the hook for in and of itself, other than as a member of the international community and commonly perceived as the most prominent member. So, that means that a “response” can be anything from sending them a bill for the cleanup services rendered by DWBand Oxfab to a strongly worded letter to a military coalition if so mandated by the UN itself I suppose.
Sorry, easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because America has found itself in the role of the global policeman that it would require the same solution set here, if there was any kind of effort at enforcement/containment.
Xecky Gilchrist
But the Beltway types are prone to inventing neat, round narrative holes before events actually take place…
And the moral of the story they want is always “And that’s why young people will vote Republican forever and ever.” Feh.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
How do you KNOW, with metaphysical certitude, that those circumstances were precisely the ones involved?
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra, an area that is used for the mixing of chemical weapons, including sarin, mustard gas, and VX, from Sunday, August 18 until the morning of Wednesday, August 21.
Individuals on the ground, including physicians affiliated with Doctors Without Borders, informed Human Rights Watch that chemical attacks started on the morning of August 21, at approximately 0245 (local time) in Ein Tarma, 0247 in Zamalka, and 0300 in Irbin. Social media reports of chemical attacks in 12 different areas begin to appear 0230 local time. Approximately 3,600 victims were treated for symptoms of neurotoxicity in 3 area hospitals.
Satellite imaging detected artillery and rocket attacks on the morning of August 21, from regime controlled areas, on the neighborhoods of Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah, all of which reported chemical attacks.
An examination of recovered munitions by warhead design expert Richard Lloyd, and MIT physicist Ted Postol, found that they were equipped to carry payloads of up to 50 liters (13 gallons), rather than the 1 or 2 liters that had been speculated by weapons experts. The Syrian government is known to have the capacity to produce both the type of munitions used, and the amount of weapons grade chemicals that each munition could carry.
The totality of the evidence is substantial, and all points toward a chemical strike by Syrian military forces.
Betty Cracker
@danimal: That’s my dream scenario. From your keyboard to FSM’s orecchiette!
Trollhattan
@IowaOldLady:
A CHILDRENS’s book! Isn’t it bad enough he pollutes the minds of undeveloped grownups, now he targets actual children?
I suspect he and Cheney have the same medical team–both will be around for another century.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Botsplainer:
I’ve said this before… but someone with a global reputation for not being able to keep a secret isn’t going to be alive for long in a country like Putin’s Russia.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
Might be a rogue commander. Might be a commander who THOUGHT he was firing off HE rounds and they turned out to be chem rounds. Might be the other side seeking to frame the government forces (and therefore, inevitably, Assad) for using chem weapons.
If it was the latter, they seem to have succeeded, because the US response seems to be “Assad is Hitler! We must do SOMETHING!”.
And there we have it. All nice and neat. John McCain cheering on the Al Qaeda Air Force, in the guise of US F-16s.
Trollhattan
@IowaOldLady: @Trollhattan:
[beat me to it, ya did]
StringOnAStick
@Trollhattan: Actually, I expected them; I was surprised we hadn’t heard about their lobbying efforts sooner. AIPAC sees a chance to drop some bombs via Israel’s proxy, and they’d hate to let a good crisis go to waste.
This whole exercise in potential “let’s bomb us some browns” has 50% to do with Syria and 50% to do with the currently only nuclear power in the ME wanting to maintain that “only” status, and seeing the recent events as a handy excuse to glom onto.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
And again, you’re buying into the scenario you want to buy into. Could the chem warfare unit be there reacting to a chem strike, not pepetrating one?
Why are you so intent on getting a war on?
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
It’s fascinating that we read that MSF press release completely differently. I read it as, “There was some kind of chemical attack, but MSF is not in a position to say who did it or precisely what chemical agent was used in the attack.” You apparently read it as MSF saying that they can’t even say there was an attack at all.
But, hey, you keep clinging to your conspiracy theory. Just out of curiosity, what will you do if the UN report comes back and says that chemical weapons were, in fact, used?
Gin & Tonic
@catclub: Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
Donut
@scav:
I guess so, but the West, and good chunks of the East, currently rely on us taxpayers of these Unuted (typo, but it’s staying) States for security. I see your point, just wonder if both friends and foes alike will not wonder WTF, exactly, is up with the US and wonder whether we can be relied upon to follow through properly on anything. That’s yet another reason why Obama should not have stuck his neck out on this, when he first did. . I know that’s kind of an esoteric point, not fully coherent nor articulated by me. I guess I am kind of saying that without our Navy and Air Force patrolling the world, global commerce that involves moving large amount of stuff from ome place to another is much harder to do. I think Obama has stretched our credibility a little too thin at this juncture. I want the resolution to fail for certain reasons, but not for others.
It’s too fucking complex for my current pay grade, at the end of the day.
Omnes Omnibus
Copy/pasted from the previous thread: “At this point, everything may be the Administration making as much noise as possible about the chemical attacks before it does nothing. If there is no UN or NATO backing and Congress says no, we won’t do it. This way, the Admin is on record as wanting and trying to do something about it. If and when Assad uses chemicals again, the Admin can say I told you so.”
I don’t see anything lame duckish coming out of this. Sane people will see it for what it is and the GOP will oppose and scream anyway.
Also, for those who think that Obama will launch attacks even if Congress says no, why? Why go to Congress if you are going to ignore it? If he was going to do it anyway, wouldn’t he just do it?
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
Might be a rogue commander. Might be a commander who THOUGHT he was firing off HE rounds and they turned out to be chem rounds. Might be the other side seeking to frame the government forces (and therefore, inevitably, Assad) for using chem weapons.
“Oops, my bad” doesn’t make it not a war crime.
Might be a rogue commander makes a case for intervention stronger, not weaker, as it implies that the Syrian Army chain of command is deteriorating, and they don’t have control of their chemical arsenal.
“The rebels did it” explanation is pure tinfoil-hat territory, unless you can come up with some evidence that shows they had quantity of chemicals necessary to launch such an attack, and the logistical capability to coordinate it in 14 different areas.
Sloegin
It’ll probably pass. Repubs just love blowing up stuff too much.
Fallout? Best to worst:
1. We symbolically blow up a small percentage of military stuff and call it a day. Might as well have written a sternly worded letter.
2. We degrade Assad’s forces enough that civil war drags on for several more years, killing hundreds of thousands more.
3. We bomb so much stuff the other guys win. AQ allied rebels win a country, control of petrol and gas dollars, and massive stocks of poison gasses.
But hey, better that than not doing anything because we would feel bad.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
So far, the weight of the evidence is against it being a false flag operation by rebels operating inside territory held by the Syrian Army, unless your theory is that the Syrian Army has been infiltrated by the rebels who are now sabotaging the Syrian Army from within (which is, I suppose, possible in theory).
After a certain point, though, Occam’s Razor kicks in when you start asking questions like, Who had access to those weapons and the authority to launch them? The delivery system was not the kind of thing you can whip up in your backyard.
Note again, though, that this does not necessarily mean that Assad personally ordered the launching of those weapons. There are a whole lot of possible scary scenarios available even once you concede that they were Syrian Army weapons launched by members of the Syrian Army, from Assad’s brother giving the orders to a rogue commander acting on his own.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
Could the chem warfare unit be there reacting to a chem strike, not pepetrating one?
I can safely say that they weren’t reacting to a chemical strike 3-days before it took place.
And reaction presupposes that rebel forces had the quantity of chemicals, ordnance, and logistical capability to pull off such an attack. You’ve not produced a shred of evidence to that end.
rikyrah
if the resolution goes down, the President will be ok
Villago Delenda Est
I might also add to my last, why are you unwilling to look beyond the “punitive” strikes on Assad to the consequences of those strikes, say a week to 10 days to one month down the road?
This is the problem. We want to “do SOMETHING” about chemical warfare attacks on civilians. But will the “SOMETHING” help or hurt in the long run?
The evidence you cite is compelling, to be sure. But it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Go over to James Fallow’s post of William Polk’s essay on Syria, here. Polk raises a lot of good points that deserve your consideration.
Frankly, I’m beginning to think that your blind loyalty to Obama is driving you thinking here, and that’s not good. I believe that military intervention is a mistake, because it invariably leads to even more military intervention when the first strike doesn’t “solve” the problem that it was supposed to…because it can’t. This is not WWII where Eisenhower had a pretty simple general order to follow: Engage and defeat the armed forces of Nazi Germany and end their ability to wage war. This mission order is far more complex and difficult to pull off with all the restrictions placed on it.
? Martin
@Villago Delenda Est:
I don’t buy either of those.
This wasn’t one attack, it was several simultaneous ones. We know that from the immediate reports from different areas, and Doctors without Borders confirms that. So I don’t see how it was a mistake from the guys loading the guns. And if it was a rogue commander, it was one who had authority over a relatively large area and several units. That could certainly be, but the closer to Assad you have to climb to explain this, the harder it becomes to absolve Assad of responsibility.
It could have been a false flag, but it was a hell of a ballsy one. That suggests that the rebels were willing to gas their own wives and children, and then gas their own front-line soldiers and supporters as the people that went in to document all of this died as well. Further, they gassed their strongholds which makes no sense. Why not gas some inconsequential area that if Assad claimed it would be no big deal. This was a front line attack on areas that Assad has been struggling to take back. The gamble would have to be that it’s worth losing your front line on the hope that other nations would intervene. That’s bold beyond belief.
I’m willing to believe that some of the previous chemical weapons claims were from the rebels – few deaths, not consequential areas. Ok, that’s horrible but at least rational. Also could have been Assad testing the waters to see if we would detect the chemical weapons use and if so, if we would act on it. Lacking a response, he escalates. If that’s what happens, it’d be reasonable for us to conclude that Assad would be willing to escalate again if there’s no response, so even a ‘show’ response might be sufficient to stop the behavior – our willingness to engage would be established, even if it that response didn’t cripple Assad.
This is really the kind of stuff that only the military/intel community can sort out. They’ve been watching the details of how everyone is acting. They would have the best handle on what would be a deterrent and what wouldn’t in this case.
Elizabelle
I wonder if the template for Obama’s concern is Rwanda.
Recall that the militants (Hutus) attacked UN peacekeepers first; no response meant they were free to carry out their massacre by machete. 800,000 dead, if not more.
Perhaps Assad is testing the West’s resolve on this.
The Obama administration does not want to see Assad able to use chemical weapons against civilians without reprisal, yet this has happened as the US and the West have war fatigue. (For good reason.)
What a mess.
I don’t like us getting involved, and I don’t like Obama using a national evening address to sell us on a military strike, when he did not go to those lengths on healthcare and other topics of more pressing national concern.
feebog
@Villago Delenda Est:
Assad is a sociopathic dictator who will stop at absolutely nothing to stay in power. I have kept out of this “bomb or not bomb” debate for the most part because I truly am conflicted by this situation. I generally agree with most of your comments, but to describe Assad as “disagreeable” is alarming. I have little doubt that Assad will use his chemical weapons again, and against civilian populations. It will be interesting to see what the non-interventionists have to say at that point.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
Frankly, I’m beginning to think that your blind loyalty to Obama is driving you thinking here, and that’s not good.
So, no evidence for the “rebels did it” position beyond speculation?
Thought as much.
Willful blindness in the support of isolationism is no virtue.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
Yet the US media is CONVINCED that the bloodthirsty Assad personally ordered this strike (in a neighborhood his forces control) because…well, he’s our Bond Villain. It’s what he does.
The assumption that Assad is personally responsible is simplistic thinking based on American norms of “who controls the buttons for the nukes, chems and bios?”. Our military has a very strict protocol on the use of these weapons. To assume that Syria’s military also has such protocols, and under the stress of civil war they’re holding up is, IMHO as a former professional staff officer, a very shaky assumption. Yet our media people have grasped it and made it central to the narrative.
As we all know, the narrative MUST be served, must be preserved, at all cost.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
And Iraq’s use of such weapons was the instigator for this organization to be founded. I guess we might as well tell the Australia Group to close up shop, ‘cos hey, using gas is no biggie, right?
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
Assuming I’m an isolationist indicates that you have gone into the same dimension as WND and Newsmax.
Cacti
@Elizabelle:
The Obama administration does not want to see Assad able to use chemical weapons against civilians without reprisal, yet this has happened as the US and the West have war fatigue. (For good reason.)
War fatigue from WWI is a large reason why WWII was able to take place.
“Let the Europeans sort this out” turned out to be a disastrous policy.
karensky
B.C. I agree with you completely.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
But here’s the question: are you opposed to all military intervention, or to unilateral intervention by the US? If you’re opposed to unilateral intervention then, yay, you’re on the same team as the rest of us, who are horrified by the use of chemical weapons on civilians but think that a unilateral response by the US would only make things worse.
If Obama is able to talk/persuade/arm-twist Russia and China into supporting action by the UN, or if the Arab League steps up, are you equally opposed to those bodies using military intervention?
Lurker
@Betty Cracker:
Assad used chemical weapons against a civilian population, an egregious war crime that killed nearly 1,500 innocent people. And you’re more than willing to just shrug your shoulders and do nothing about it.
That means the next time Assad uses chemical weapons, the blood will be on your hands. You might not like facing that fact, you might lash out at that harsh reality, but that doesn’t make it any less true. We could do something to prevent the further use of chemical weapons against civilians but you just plain don’t want to.
More broadly speaking, I love all of the people who are saying that chemical weapons were used before and not punished, the enforcement of these laws has been selective, so why do anything? Well, you know what? Maybe if the enforcement of these laws had been somewhat less selective, Assad wouldn’t have thought he could get away with it. And maybe the way to stop that selective enforcement isn’t to keep doing it, but to finally draw a line in the sand and make sure laws are upheld. We can’t change the past but we can choose a better future.
I’m just astounded by how many people want to do nothing. Get it through your heads: this isn’t Iraq. The existence of these chemical weapons isn’t being fabricated by right-wing warmongers; these attacks aren’t alleged to have happened 15 or 20 years ago. These weapons are real, we know they exist and they were used against innocent people two weeks ago. I guess I’m just astounded by the fact that the Iraq clusterfuck apparently turned vast swaths of the left into isolationists–progressives are supposed to protect innocent people, remember? Iraq was bullshit, but that doesn’t mean doing nothing is always the right option.
Cassidy
This whole Syria thing reminds me of the Kony slacktivism. It was funny to watch white people learn, via Facebook, that atrocities happen in Africaa and even more precious when they found out how long that kind of thing had been happening (but thanks for noticing). Now, people just want to do something about Syria. So you mean to tell me that 100K+ dead, half a country displaced, atrocities committed with conventional weapons and a civil war were cool, but 1000 dead from chemical weapons is a bridge too far? This coming from the same country who collectively freaked out when Ben Affleck was chosen to be Batman and Miley Cyrus decided to grind her ass on stage? Whatever. It’s football season. No one will give a shit paSt next Sunday anyway.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@? Martin: Who cares what you buy or don’t buy? You can’t prove anything one way or the other. You just have an opinion about what happened and want someone killed by someone else based on your opinion.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
So? I have yet to see any evidence that Obama pays any attention to what the media says or does. Frankly, these days it doesn’t seem that anyone really pays their views much attention.
cleek
@Elizabelle:
umm…. remember when that jackass Congressman yelled “You lie!” at Obama during a speech in front of Congress ?
that was during a nationally-televised, prime-time speech on health care.
Cacti
@Cassidy:
So you mean to tell me that 100K+ dead, half a country displaced, atrocities committed with conventional weapons and a civil war were cool, but 1000 dead from chemical weapons is a bridge too far?
Yes, there is in fact a body of law that sets perimeters around what is acceptable conduct in times of war. That’s why they are called “war crimes”. Otherwise, we’re saying that there’s no qualitative difference between an engagement between armies and the slaughter of a village, because, hey man, it’s war, and people die and stuff.
Villago Delenda Est
@feebog:
Oh, so now this guy is absolutely a sociopath. Yet some of his opponents, who wish to impose orthodox Sunni doctrine on everyone are not so bad after all! Casting him as the paragon of evil might play well for the scum of the MSM, who always want to simplify the complex so the narrative is easy to deliver, but it has some, er disadvantages as well.
Assad is NOT a nice man. He’s probably not a competent man, seeing as his government’s mishandling of a drought crisis is the root cause of this mess. But you get rid of him, and what happens then? The anti-Assad forces lose their focus and you have a situation similar to that in Libya where the formerly united opposition to the bad guy begins to squabble amongst themselves with AK 47s and bombs about whose vision of Libya’s future gets top billing.
This situation is not good for your average Joe in the street in Syria, no matter how it plays out. More refugees fleeing utter chaos. What fun!
cleek
@Omnes Omnibus:
that’s why
Trollhattan
@Lurker:
See, this is where the whole rationale drives into the weeds before you even make it through the onramp.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
As far as I’m aware, the Russian public thinks the 2002 Moscow Theater event was a success. Which is was, compared to when Chechen separatists blew up themselves in a school in Beslan killing 334 hostages, including 186 kids. Rescuing 75% of the hostages is better than 0%.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
Oh, so now this guy is absolutely a sociopath.
Well, he’s a second generation authoritarian dictator, who learned governance from a father who had no problem letting the blood flow to keep the rabble in line, and the apple doesn’t seem to have fallen far from the tree.
“Unpleasant” is when someone cuts you off in traffic.
Cassidy
@Cacti: Well, as long as you’re satisfied that atrocities are conducted with the appropriate weapons, it’s all good.
PeakVT
Fuck the Middle East.
Can we talk about the jobs report now?
cleek
@Lurker:
mine, yours, and the hands of every one of the other 7 billion people in the world. the same way everyone is responsible for everything bad that happened in the world today, and yesterday, and last month, and three years ago and parachute pants and New Coke. there’s just so much blame to bear. so much blood on all our hands. it’s a wonder we can get through the day. how many people died in Syria before it became the US’s sole responsibility to stop them from dying in this particular way? 100,000? that’s a lot of blood on your very selective finger-pointing hand.
it’s odd how some people can’t see this as anything but the US’s problem. “SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED IN THE WORLD! THE US NEEDS TO FIX IT! AND CAN! AND MUST! AND YOU HATE THE CHILDREN IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!”
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
Unilateral, for sure. I’m opposed. I’m tired of the US getting involved in endless quagmires militarily. Now, if we were to offer large scale actual help for the drought that set up this mess, I’m all ears. Of course, we’d have to do something about human caused climate change, and that’s not going to happen because there are too many people in this country who deny it exists, to include everyone in big oil, coal, and natural gas.
If it’s joint, and under UN command, that’s a different matter. I’m all for the international community enforcing international norms. It’s just that getting the international community to come to a consensus on the shape of the negotiating table is more difficult than herding cats.
Cacti
@Cassidy:
Well, as long as you’re satisfied that atrocities are conducted with the appropriate weapons, it’s all good.
Right. No difference between the Battle of the Bulge and Auschwitz. Gotcha.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lurker:
Isolationism vs. internationalism has never been a left/right thing. The isolationists on the left tend to come from the viewpoint that Anne Laurie was expressing the other day, that we should not be trying to fix problems elsewhere when we have so many at home. It’s not my take on things – the world is too interconnected and shooting an archduke in Balkans can have huge consequences – but it has been around for along time.
Mnemosyne
@Cassidy:
Oh, come on, a veteran should be one of the people who understands that there are rules in war that you’re not supposed to break. Using chemical weapons is one of those rules — they were banned by the Geneva Conventions even before the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. And while launching nerve gas into civilian territory is slightly less personal than overrunning a village and shooting everyone in it, it’s no less of a war crime.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek:
Don’t try to hang that bullshit on me.
cleek
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
you could’ve stopped it. but you didn’t.
the
bloodbillowing fabric is on your hands!Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Can we get Captain Mnemo and Tim banned again if I threaten both of them?
EriktheRed
Don’t have a prediction on the vote, but I agree with Steve M:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-public-will-reject-master-media.html
VividBlueDotty
@elmo:
High five to YOU for delivering this fully deserved bitch slap.
El Caganer
Perhaps there might be some value in private one-on-one talks with Iran. Certainly their people, having experienced horrendous chemical-weapon attacks, have no love for that sort of warfare, and they seem a bit ambiguous in their support for the Assad government. If there is a possibility that a peace conference could end or mitigate the civil war (which, I’ll admit, isn’t any more likely than a U.S. missile strike ending or mitigating the civil war), it’s at least worth exploring.
Mandalay
@piratedan:
Do you have a link for that. and does it apply to internal conflicts? And if “we’re bound by treaty to respond”, do any other nations have the same obligation, or is it just us?
The Administration keeps saying that Syria has violated a norm by using chemical weapons, but I don’t hear them making any legal arguments about treaty obligations.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
Interestingly, one of the populaces most fatigued by WWI was the German populace.
Germans did not want war in 1939. They were very wary of it. Only after the triumphs in Poland and France did they show any enthusiasm for the current war, and the were not very happy at all when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, but were all thinking, well, it will probably be like Poland and France and be over with pretty quickly and we’ll get back to normal again, except with booty from the USSR to add to our booty from Western Europe.
Didn’t turn out that way, of course.
Which is why I’m leery of unilateral American action in Syria. It probably won’t turn out the way it’s being advertised…just like Iraq didn’t turn out that way.
Omnes Omnibus
@cleek: A fair point. Nevertheless, I doubt that Obama will go forward absent Congressional approval now that he has asked for it. YMMV.
? Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Actually I don’t. My preference is to get a large humanitarian effort for the refugees done first before Lebanon falls apart or Turkey or Jordan are pushed into something.
My second preference is to make sure that Israel doesn’t lose their shit. Whatever harm you think Obama might do with a strike will be 100x better than if Israel decides to put their war panties on.
But after that, I can see a lot of potential scenarios and a lot of rationales stemming from them that – things we can’t see but which our government (and the UK government, etc.) can see. I can appreciate why they may feel like they should act. Provided Congress is given all of the information, I’ll accept their decision on this. I don’t need to be personally convinced. I have elected representatives for that. I also appreciate how fucked up Congress is, but you have to put your trust in government at some level. Mine is fairly distributed. If the co-equal branches agree, then we live with it, even if I don’t agree with it. I’ll take out my displeasure in 2014 when I vote.
But thank you for continually projecting your opinion of me without actually reading what I write. I understand that some people cannot grasp the concept that a person can argue a position that they don’t agree with simply to help understand why things happen. Keep working on it, though.
eemom
@cleek:
“umm…. remember when that jackass Congressman yelled “You lie!” at Obama during a speech in front of Congress ?
that was during a nationally-televised, prime-time speech on health care.”
No, actually that was during the SOTU, while he was talking about health care.
But IIRC the Prez did give one or more such speeches while fighting for the ACA, so your point still stands.
Still wish he wouldn’t do it to pimp this fucking war, though. REALLY wish he wouldn’t.
Cassidy
@Mnemosyne: Its not that I don’t get it, it’s the laziness of the position. Is nerve gas a worse way to go than being cut apart by shrapnel from artillery, cut in half by machine gun fire, systematic rape and genocide? Any war with modern weaponry sucks balls and there is nothing humane or gentlemanly about it. Pissing and shitting on yourself and suffocating to death because your body shuts down is no worse than having your skin roasted off by WP. So, while I don’t particularly have an issue with enforcing international law and bringing war criminals to trial, I don’t really buy into the hierarchy of pain thats trying to be built. Once you get past a certain point its a distinction without a difference.
Cacti
@Lurker:
I guess I’m just astounded by the fact that the Iraq clusterfuck apparently turned vast swaths of the left into isolationists–progressives are supposed to protect innocent people, remember? Iraq was bullshit, but that doesn’t mean doing nothing is always the right option.
It the same sort of thoughtless analysis that led to overwhelming support of the Iraq war in the first place.
“Al Qaeda bad, Iraq bad too. Must make war with Iraq.”
Now it’s
“Iraq war bad, so Syria bad too. Must do nothing in Syria.”
MikeJ
If you think Syria is bad, you should see what England is doing to Moldova.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cassidy:
The people who went through it in WWI seemed to think so.
mai naem
@PeakVT: I read something somewhere(Bloomberg?) that banks are finally loosening the strings. If that’s true, I think the jobs reportswill get better substantially. I have some close friends who have a successful business who have been trying to get a relatively small loan for some upgrading/refurbishment of the business and have been having a hard time getting a loan. Something that a few years ago would have been absolutely no problem.
piratedan
@Mandalay: already replied to this upstream..
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@? Martin: Oh, bullshit. You argue the case for war every fucking time the opportunity presents itself. You are the runty little misfit on the playground trying to set up a fight between two other people and then casually tossing it off as none of your doing.
Betty Cracker
@Lurker:
Bullshit. Grok this: There’s a spectrum of action between “do nothing” and “launch Tomahawk missiles.” My preference lies along that spectrum, not at either end.
Again, bullshit. See above. And while you’re at it, look up the definition of “false dichotomy.”
Your lecture is not only based on false premises, it’s incredibly offensive and self-defeating. If you’re for strengthening the Syrian opposition, which even the Obama administration acknowledges includes a not-insignificant portion of flaming nutbags, by your own logic, you are objectively pro-al Qaeda. See how that works?
Cacti
Also too, since internet memories are less than 24-hours, I was not in support of intervening in Libya, and found the reason for doing so to be far less compelling than the current situation.
So the “you want intervention because you heart Obama” is pure bollocks.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: Isn’t it fun how some threads on this topic quickly degrade into sewers?
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
Bullshit. Grok this: There’s a spectrum of action between “do nothing” and “launch Tomahawk missiles.” My preference lies along that spectrum, not at either end.
A sternly worded letter and care packages for the victims should do the trick.
Captain C
@WereBear:
This, and the fact that they’re already having serious water problems in the Middle East. According to this article at Bill Moyers, Syria has been going through a terrible drought since about 2006:
If this is a preview of the coming century, we’re in for some ugly times.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
What “conspiracy theory” have I advocated?
Learn something: Neurotoxicity
There are hundreds – if not thousands – of chemicals and biochemicals capable of causing neuron death, damage, or affecting afferent and/or efferent neural signalling from interdiction/expression of neurotransmitters. Saying patients arrived at a refugee clinic with neural toxicity and THEREFORE it was caused by exposure to sarin is scientifically ludicrous.
Because I am operating with too many Known Unknowns I cannot outline a reasoned course of action until the UN inspectors release their report.
cleek
everything short of marching into Syria and seizing every weapon will result in more deaths. they’re having a fucking civil war!
AND THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!
Cain
It will be interesting to see what AIPAC is going to do with this. Do you think they’ll throw their muscle in and try to get them to do the interference. I know that Israel has skin in the game.
Greg
@Cacti:
Ignore the moral standing part, which I agree is not terribly useful. The fact remains, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, nobody reacted to it for 20+ years until he was pulled down for other reasons, and no other state used chemical weapons for 30 years after he did.
Clearly one non-response is not going to suddenly regularize the use of chemical weapons and cause everybody and his brother to start making and using them.
In my opinion, the ideal response for Obama here is to bitch a lot about chemical weapons and international norms (step 1 accomplished!), and then don’t actually do anything about it, preferably without undermining your credibility too much from when you were bitching (step 2 is on its way!).
I’m not sure that this is all on purpose on Obama’s part, but it’s certainly working for him as best as the shitty situation allows so far, in that “the international community” gets to reiterate that chemical weapons are bad, but we don’t actually have to intervene in a situation in Syria which is beyond fucked up.
Villago Delenda Est
@Lurker: j
I was opposed to Iraq before it happened. I knew it was a huge mistake, one that would haunt us. I watched as military professionals were given the heave-ho because they failed to join in the chorus of cheers for the deserting coward’s great Mesopotamian adventure, for daring to offer professional appraisals of what would likely happen that didn’t reflect the flowers and candy predictions of the neocons. GEN Eric Shenseki was ditched as Army Chief of Staff because he dared to speak truth to power…that an occupation of Iraq, to be successful, would require more soldiers on the ground than the US Army had, active duty, reserve, and National Guard.
I was opposed to Afghanistan because we were using a huge hammer to go after a very small phillips head screw. That tracking down and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice was a detective operation, not a military operation. As it actually turned out to be.
I supported action in the former Yugoslavia because a slaughter was in progress, but the Bosniaks were, unfortunately, not living on top of Exxon’s oil fields.
I’m opposed to this unilateral intervention because we’re assuming…ASSUMING (making an ass out of U and ME) that Assad, despite the fact that he has little to gain from a Sarin attack, ordered a Sarin attack. His opposition, however, has plenty to gain from it…like obtaining their own air force piloted by professionals.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR PARACHUTE PANTS!
Cacti
@cleek:
everything short of marching into Syria and seizing every weapon will result in more deaths. they’re having a fucking civil war!
cleek also found the intervention in Kosovo to be “legally questionable” and couldn’t give a straight answer on whether or not it was justified, just a mealy-mouthed “it had a positive outcome”.
Omnes Omnibus
@cleek:
Wrong. Marching into Syria and seizing every weapon will also result in more deaths. There are no option here that will not result in more deaths. The question is which option will result in the least more deaths? And I have no fucking idea what the answer is.
MikeJ
@Cacti: .
I’m still not convinced that intervention is the best answer, but I’m a lot more willing to listen to Obama based on his competence. My main reason for being against the invasion of Iraq was that I knew Bush would fuck it up, and he did. I think the way Obama handled Libya was just the right amount while hostilities were going on. It’s a pity the US didn’t fly pallets full of money over there and help them recover from the revolution (and you know, keep the army paid so there are fewer heavily armed pissed off people wandering around.)
Omnes Omnibus
@Greg:
I am hoping that is the way things play out.
Keith G
Oooo, My turn
The res will pass since there are a few too many mid and long term negative consequences if the use of chemical weapons is not confronted. The problem is trying to create a method of confrontation that might actually (at least for a bit) stem the deterioration in and around Syria (massive refugee movement, etc) and not add to the growing list of problems.
Not passing would harm the President as it was was a judgement call so his judgement will be questioned…further. It happens. It is called being the President. Nothing novel about it. Presidents have been known to bounce back. So, we get to see how much game he has left.
BTW, up there in the thread, I saw comparison to WJC and health care then impeachment. No. Not that comparable. The health care defeat was early and Clinton was able to take time and he recalibrated with “triangulation”. But he was still a first termer so he had time. The impeachment was just madness and the public never felt the GOP was justified.
So in short: It passes. On the chance it doesn’t, Obama has some work to do to resolidify his image as a leader – which he should be able to accomplish.
hoodie
Politically, Obama doesn’t lose much if the vote fails in the House. Obama makes a good faith effort to obtain congressional authorization. If it doesn’t happen, Assad may behave himself and somehow the situation resolves itself in some way that does not involve chemical weapons. Only beltway morons would view that as a loss for Obama. Alternatively, Assad launches another gas attack and Obama then has free rein to bomb the fuck out of the Syrian Army. I doubt he’d even have to go back to Congress on that, but they’d probably rubberstamp it anyway. One risk with that scenario is that things spiral out of control, the Israelis get involved, etc., but that could happen even without another gas attack. Obama figures it’s better to act now than later because the chemical weapons add a significant higher level of uncertainty and there is some value to trying to reinforce norms on their use, but that’s a judgment call. He ultimately wants the Russians and others to lean on Assad to take a permanent vacation in Paraguay or some such place, and I guess we’ll lean on the Saudis to pull the plug on the jihadists in return. Syria ends up with some sort of military government. I’m not happy with us being the world’s policeman, but you don’t walk off the beat in midshift. No one else has 11 carrier strike groups ready to go.
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
Those victims didn’t all show up at the hospitals with a nasty case of the flu that just happened to hit right around the time of the rocket attack. The precise chemical weapon used is currently unknown, but it’s beyond stupid to try and claim that if we don’t know the precise agent at this time, we’re not allowed to say there was a chemical weapons attack.
Mnemosyne
@hoodie:
Assad would be a fool to do it, but of course people do foolish things when they’re desperate. I do think that all of our dick-waving and Very Serious Rumbling could help prevent another such action by the Syrian Army even if we don’t actually drop any bombs — sometimes credible threats alone can be enough to make someone decide not to do something a second time.
IIRC, there had been earlier rumors of chemical attacks, but this is the first one that was large enough to able to be verified by outside agencies and NGOs and to send UN inspectors to investigate, which is one of the reasons it’s getting such a huge international reaction.
feebog
@ Betty Cracker:
I keep hearing this, and yet no one offers specifics. Lending aid to millions of refugees is a good idea, and we should do it, but it doesn’t bring us any closer to resolution of the conflict. So if there are options between “do nothing” and “limited military retaliatory strike” I’d like to hear them. And please, don’t start with charging the various factions with war crimes, they could give a fuck, and it won’t be a deterrent.
Comrade Dread
I think he’ll get his resolution. And I think we’ll get dragged further and further into this.
First it will be, “We can’t let chemical weapons use go unpunished”, then it will be trying to strengthen our ‘preferred’ rebel groups so they’re the ones that will try and take the forefront of a new Syria, then it will probably be to secure Syria’s chemical weapons so they don’t fall into the hands of the Al Qaeda rebel groups, and so on…
This just seems like a giant clusterfuck in the making and yet another one that we’re choosing to get involved in. Pardon the language.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
Describe for me symptomatic distinctions between a sarin attack and exposure to organophosphate insecticides due to “collateral damage” to a farm supply store.
Patricia Kayden
“What happens if the Obama administration’s Syria resolution is defeated in Congress?”
Things will continue as normal. Repubs will continue to obstruct everything President Obama proposes and Dems will continue to support him.
Perhaps the UN will then take the lead, with support from the US, on how to properly respond to Syria. That’s a better way to handle this crisis. At the very least, President Obama must respect Congress’ vote.
eemom
I don’t understand how you people think Obama escapes politically unimpaired after he gives a prime time speech and doesn’t get what he asked for.
And to suggest he actually wants that result is an eleventy dimensional chess bridge too far even for me.
RaflW
@zombie rotten mcdonald:
Late to the Tbogg-unit party, but I agree. I think Obama has at least gotten a domestic ‘win’ of sorts in that most of the wackanoodles have had to fight for attention for their pet shutdown tantrum trolling for now.
That’s worth something.
And if the resolution is defeated, then hey-doody! what the American people want may actually happen for once. What is happening in Syria is awful. I don’t see an onslaught of million dollar Tomahawks as helping, and polling says I’m in the majority on that.
? Martin
@cleek:
Well, we went through this with Libya. Even when there were multiple nations willing to act without the US, the reality was that they were much more likely to fail without us.
Because of the Cold War and because of our coming out on top of that situation, we’ve effectively suppressed all other remote military capability on the planet. Sure, leaders can kill their own people or maybe step across a border, but nobody else can realistically go a contingent away. Nobody else can run an entire campaign without a land base. We have twice as many carriers as all other nations combined. We have the only really functional, global sub service. We have the only global air reach. We have most of the strategic bombers. We have almost all of the stealth capability. We have most of the long-range surveillance and communication capability. One of the few upshots to our irresponsible military spending…
So, if France decided to go into Syria without us, would we sit back and not help refuel their planes or provide medical treatment for them, when we already have carriers and whatnot sitting right there? Would we refuse to provide them with better intelligence to help them avoid hitting civilians? Does that seem like the right thing to do? And so we’re going to get sucked into all sorts of things as a result, simply because our inclusion is likely to make that effort far more successful – at least for any remote action like is being proposed here. And I’m sure our generals are looking at these intentions from other nations, like they did with Libya, and determining ‘these guys are going to struggle here and they don’t know how to do this’.
I know that doesn’t apply in this case, but it does go to your comment in a lot of other cases. So yeah, we’re the guy on the corner that has every tool and 9 ladders and one way or another is going to get sucked into every home improvement project on the block. And I think we’d rather it be that way than have someone else be that guy.
Trollhattan
@eemom:
So many things come to mind but the top is “Pass this jobs bill NOW!” Launched with a high-profile energetic speech (one of the best of his presidency, I think) and an aggressive roadshow. Crickets.
Irresistable force meets immovable Republican object. Rinse, repeat.
sharl
Think Progress national security person Hayes Brown posed a question relevant to this thread on his Twitter account, and got at least a couple thoughtful responses IMO. Presented below without endorsement or expert commentary (’cause I ain’t got no expertise on this):
(edited to be – hopefully – more readable)
Patricia Kayden
@Cacti: 59% of Americans are against any US military strikes against Syria so many in this country will be high fiving each other if the resolution is defeated.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/03/obama-syria-poll-pew-abc/2758597/
Dave
I don’t mind the FUD. War sucks. But sometimes it is hard to tell FUD with Conviction from hysteria.
feebog
@ Patricia Kayden:
I agree that nothing much will change domestically if the authorization fails in congress, but the UN is not going to do anything about this. This is a security problem, and both Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council. Syria is a client state of Russia and Assad is the puppet dictator. Russia is not about to let the UN do anything that might overthrow Assad. It is going to be up to the various rebel factions, and some of them are every bit as bad as Assad.
Bobby Thomson
@piratedan: Not accurately. You just made it up.
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
There were 14 attack sites spread throughout the city. That’s a whole lot of farm supply stores. There must be one on every corner, like Starbucks.
Botsplainer
@Patricia Kayden:
And peace will guide the planets and love will fill the stars.
*guffaw*
Personally, I’m going to start lobbying for stockpiling chemical weapons, preferably for use against Occupy protesters and Cindy Sheehan during the Santorum administration, now that they’re no big deal.
Emma
@Cassidy: Actually, chemical weapons are worse. You get shot, or macheted, you’re dead. You get gassed with sarin, you’re dead — and so is the environment down to soil bacteria. It works like an organophosphate insecticide but a whole lot more powerful. A few more attacks and we will have a permanent refugee problem.
BillinGlendaleCA
@eemom:
Not unless he started giving the SOTU in September.
Keith G
@eemom: You have been around these parts too long to find that surprising.
MomSense
@eemom:
He called a special joint session of Congress (how’s that for a bully pulpit?!) to address health care reform. It isn’t done very often but it wasn’t a SOTU.
Donut
Still amazed at how, at least here on Buffoon-Juice (present company included), many are still stuck on arguing whether or not there is a moral imperative for the US to act in the face of chemical weapons attacks.
It’s bullshit.
The issue of why our leaders are contemplating attacking Syria is really two-fold:
1. The world currently and for at least the next 20-odd years desperately needs a stable Middle East to keep the oil supply flowing. Our modern world completely depends on it in every way.
and
2. There are bad people all inside, outside and and all around Syria who want to commit acts of terror and/or war against the West and Israel, and assorted allies, and we want to kill them or degrade their capacity to commit said acts of terror
Anything else you might bring into the discussion is window dressing, as far as our government and intelligence agencies are concerned. They don’t give a shit about stopping future chemical attacks. They don’t give a shit about the morality plays we have invented around the matter. Okay, I’ll grant, Obama might, and some other leaders might, tangentially, care about such things, but only as it relates to points 1 and 2 above. You are fucking kidding yourself and are definitively blowing balloon juice if you think otherwise.
scav
@eemom: It does rather involve imagining putting the good of being seen to follow the rule of law above personal political scorecard to get it. (Especially tricky as so many seem to buy into the image of President as single unique Decider every word of which is immediately official ‘mercan policy.) I personally don’t see a good outcome anyway in this situation and while I can imanine better and worse outcomes, can’t see a clear way to ensure they happen. So, best I can hope for personally is playing by the (admittedly non-ideal) rules of the game and not swinging the ‘merca as unilateral ruler of the world stick.
Donut
@eemom:
I agree with you, except I think Democrats and a healthy slice of left-ish independents will still like the guy, Republicans will still hate him, etc. It changes nothing in that regard. When he decides to throw the weight of the presidency behind some other matter, I don’t see how a failure to win congressional auth for a Syria strike will matter. I actually, unfortunately, think he will follow through on it some way or another regardless.
Also, too – intelligence people and special ops are most certainly already on the ground doing recon and other assorted shit that those people are wont to do.
Ahh says fywp
@Mnemosyne: Funny you should mention she who was on radio last night drumming up a march to WAR based on secret Senate briefings.
Jeremy
@Botsplainer: That is the problem. The UN hasn’t been able to anything because Russia refuses. But it seems like the people who oppose air strikes can’t come up with a reasonable alternative solution.
I better not hear shit from the “critics” of the president about stopping the bloodshed in Syria if this resolution fails.
sharl
eemom:
At least a couple political bloggers who IMO are usually pretty good have considered this, and they make a distinction between the Beltway punditocracy (along with GOP leaders as well, of course), and the general public as well as Democrats specifically. The former will react as you say. But the latter? Maybe not…
Greg Sargent:
Steve M. (who cites some historical precedents that seem relevant):
Jeremy
When Obama leaves office he should tell the entire country to F off. I have never seen a president so disrespected and second guessed at every turn.
Heliopause
1. The House votes no.
2. Obama bombs something anyway.
3. What’s that word that starts with “I” that the GOPers are always talking about?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Botsplainer: So bombing Syria is the only thing keeping you from going on your own poison gas rampage? You obots are certainly no credit to Obama.
Cacti
@Patricia Kayden:
59% of Americans are against any US military strikes against Syria so many in this country will be high fiving each other if the resolution is defeated.
And your point is?
62% supported the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Jeremy:
There, there. It must be terrible for you.
Cacti
@Jeremy:
I have never seen a president so disrespected and second guessed at every turn.
Yes, this POTUS and his family are subject to a basic level of disrespect that I’ve never seen directed at any of his predecessors. Clinton was the closest, but even his enemies didn’t accuse him of not being born here.
Keith G
@Jeremy: Were you around 1977-1980?
Edit
@Cacti: Ditto
Jeremy
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: It’s not terrible for me but it shows that many in this country are ridiculous clowns.
Gravenstone
@Trollhattan: Ya know, if the Jewish lobby wants a war so fucking bad, they can always lobby the nation of Israel. After all, that has the added bonus of keeping it in the literal neighborhood.
Jeremy
@Keith G: Yeah because blatant racism and constant bitching was happening to the same degree when Jimmy Carter was president. It’s been ongoing for 5 years and it never happened to the same degree with Bill Clinton (and I supported the man).
Obama gets more respect from other countries than his own home country. I don’t have to go any further than that.
eemom
@BillinGlendaleCA: @MomSense:
I sit corrected. Apologies to cleek.
Mixing up speeches……..I’m getting oooooooold. : (
Mnemosyne
@Ahh says fywp:
Which one, Harman or Feinstein? I’m assuming it was Harman because she’s just the kind of asshole who would do that.
I moved to Adam Schiff’s district, who is on the skeptical side of using force, thank goodness. Though I should probably give him a “keep up the good work” call to make sure he stays on this side.
ETA: Reading what you said again, you must have meant Feinstein. She needs to frickin’ go, but no one in the California Democratic Party is willing to start the war that would be required to dislodge her from that seat.
Jeremy
I’m wary about air strikes but this entire conversation from the start has been ridiculous.
cleek
@Cacti:
it was illegal.
it worked out positive in the end so nobody cared.
this proves nothing about Syria except to demonstrate that principles are sometimes provisional. hooray.
Betty Cracker
@feebog: Fair question. Here are some ideas, not just for the US but for the international community:
1) Help Syrian civilians get out. Allow them to resettle in the US and other countries, and give support to nations that take them in. Provide those remaining in Syria with humanitarian assistance.
2) You pooh-pooh the idea of charging the various factions with war crimes, but I say not so fast. It won’t work on the current crop of deranged loons (who have nothing to lose), but isn’t the idea to prevent others from committing similar war crimes in the future? So charge them with war crimes in an international court. Make those motherfuckers famous and reviled.
3) Go after every fucking penny Assad, his family and minions have stashed in any bank, anywhere that we can wield influence. And lean hard on Russia and other countries in the region to stop supplying the Assad regime with weapons. This can’t just be the US — it’s got to be the world.
4) Send Samantha Power to the UN to shame the everlasting fuck out of Russia and China for obstructing non-lethal action against the Syrian regime. If our evidence of Assad’s guilt is as strong as we say it is (and I don’t personally doubt it), broadcast it to the world and ask Russia and China repeatedly, on the world stage, why they’re protecting such a monstrous client.
5) While the capable Ms. Power is playing bad cop at the UN, send an envoy to play good cop with Russia and China, with assurances that we don’t have any designs on Syria and are not seeking to disrupt their influence in the region. (Of course, for that to work, it would have to be true. I’m not so sure it is.)
So that’s a start. I’m sure people who are experts in international relations could come up with more and better alternatives.
PopeRatzo
@Hunter Gathers: Of course nobody will care if this resolution goes down in defeat, except the war-lovers.
And Obama? It certainly won’t make him a lame duck because he’s been a lame duck since 2010. His presidency has always been more celebratory than functional.
Trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
Arithmetic, plus Inside scoop have this as DiFi’s last term (but, it’s only year 1 of 6). Presuming she makes it to year 6, the wowah for her seat will become the nation’s most expensive senatorial race by far. FWIW I suspect it’s also Boxer’s last term.
Keith G
@Jeremy: Yeah there are those who are responding to Obama motivated by their bigotry. It’s terrible and they are marginal participants who are so ineffective in their behavior that Obama had no intra party challenge and won his re election, and won it pretty fuckng big.
Again to your original statement…
I can only suggest that you didn’t see or were too young to remember the massive and undeserved disrespect heaped upon Jimmy Carter, even by some in his own party.
Heliopause
@Jeremy:
Right, because it was much worse with Clinton. Youngsters such as yourself probably don’t remember the daily accusations of graft and even murder, a multi-year special prosecutor’s investigation, a not-just-talk-but-actual impeachment and, perhaps best of all, a death threat from a sitting senator. But it’s okay, you’re probably too young to remember.
Betty Cracker
@PopeRatzo:
Try to sell that steaming crock of horseshit to my gay sister and my soldier nephew who came home early from Iraq and the millions of college kids who are still on their parents’ insurance and the women who can now sue unfair employers and the students who are no longer easy prey for banksters and the veterans who are getting better assistance and benefits and the generations who will benefit from having Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court and the kids whose lives won’t be ruined because they smoke cocaine instead of snorting it and the patients who will benefit from the reversal of Bush’s Medieval stem cell research restrictions, etc., etc., etc.
joes527
@Keith G: Can you show me a single tweet from when Jimmy Carter was in office that was critical of him? I didn’t think so.
Keith G
@joes527: Damn. Ya got me!
Corner Stone
I’ve always made fun of the “11-D Chess” contingent here. But I’ll be god damned if this isn’t some of the most hilarious shit ever posted here.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Jeremy: I know, same thing Erick Son of Erick said when we didn’t recognize the genius of Bush II.
Obama will be alright. If it gets too terrible for him, he can always give back his lifetime pension and security detail and move back to Kenya or wherever he’s from.
spacewalrus
@Betty Cracker: are you just tuning in? Do you think people haven’t been trying to pressure Russia to do something? Do you think our country and others have done nothing about the humanitarian crisis? Maybe if lefty bloggers invested more time and energy over the last year lambasting a POS like Putin, instead of having more contempt for our President re: Syria…I don’t know. But don’t pop off like there aren’t a whole lot of ppl a whole helluva lot smarter than you and everyone else here, including myself, who aren’t actively working towards answers to the questions you raised. Of course, some on the American left have a real hard time holding Vlad and his country accountable for anything since it became a beacon for civil liberties, so good luck with that. And good luck selling an idea like, “Let’s bring the refugees here.” Ha. All I ask is that the non-interventionists recognize that you’re preferred both isn’t necessarily the moral high ground and it’s not any less fraught with risks than alternatives.
mclaren
For some reason I keep picturing Obama in a Jedi cloak waving his hands as he murmurs to congress, “This is not the Syria resolution you’re looking for.”
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@eemom:
Too late, you’re already in the pie filter by default.
Lady Bug
@Betty Cracker:
As for the international court, it’s a worthy idea, but I’m not sure how realistic it is considering that in order to be referred to the ICC, Russia has to vote for it. Considering that Russia has vetoed mere S.C. resolutions condemning Assad’s violence, there seems to be very little chance that they would actually vote to send Assad to the ICC, even if the ICC also indites any rebel military leader for atrocities will be indited as well.
ETA: That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it, just that it probably won’t succeed.
Ted & Hellen
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Your question about threatening me makes me feel threatened.
Are your comments coming from INSIDE MY HOUSE?!
I’ve emailed Cole…
Matt McIrvin
@joes527:
Eh, Massachusetts may have come out ahead on the deal anyway.
Corner Stone
@spacewalrus:
“We have top men working on it right now.”
“Who?!”
“Top… Men.”
Corner Stone
What’s amusing is that the congressional resolution is getting more narrow by the day. When that warmongering president of ours gets back a piece of paper saying he’s authorized to blow spitballs in Assad’s general direction, then what?
Ted & Hellen
@Jeremy:
I’m sorry. Didn’t he aggressively seek and campaign for this office? Or did someone force him into the job?
Either way, he’s been telling liberals/progressives to fuck off since election day 2008, so he might as well do likewise to the nation as a whole. Hey maybe he should quit and do it now?!
Lady Bug
Editorial from the NYT: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/the-bush-burden/?ref=opinion
Time should not soften what President George W. Bush, and his apologists, did in an eight-year war costing the United States more than a trillion dollars, 4,400 American soldiers dead and the displacement of two million Iraqis. The years should not gauze over how the world was conned into an awful conflict. History should hold him accountable for the current muddy debate over what to do in the face of a state-sanctioned mass killer.
Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it’s his superpower now, his armies to move, his stage. But the prior president gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed — or express doubt that it happened — is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years. And for the nearly 200 members of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like Scrooge’s ghost.
feebog
@Betty Cracker:
spacewalrus already rebuted several points in your post, although his tone is unnecessarily abrasive. Let me add a couple more.
1. I think I already agreed that more humanitarian aid is in order her, and I don’t oppose the idea of resettlement of some of the displaced. Again, it does absolutely nothing in terms of solving the conflict. In fact, I would argue that the more aid we and others give, the more incentive for both sides to ramp up the hostilities.
2. So now we want to charge these assholes with war crimes not because we think it will deter them in any way but as a lesson for future evildoers? Isn’t that the same argument that many are making for a military strike? Make it a lesson to deter other countries from using chemical weapons.
3. Going after Assad’s assets has some appeal, assuming of course that it isn’t stashed away in Russia or China. Want to bet it isn’t? And hasn’t Obama already been leaning on Putin, to the point where they can’t even have a civil conversation?
As for points 4 and 5, let me just make this observation; Russia, and Putin in particular don’t give a rat’s ass how much pressure we try to put on them. Assad is on their team, and they are going to back him to the bitter end. And you can add China to that mix as well. Shame Russia in the UN? All they are going to say is, there is no credible evidence that chemical weapons were used, and even if they were, there is no credible evidence that it was Assad that used them. Utter nonsense of course, but hey, plausible deniability, how the fuck does it work?
Lady Bug
For those of us who want to do something:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/world/iyw-how-to-help-syrian-refugees/index.html
askew
Obama’s going to give a primetime speech on Tuesday. Then, the Senate will pass the Syrian resolution with a bipartisan vote and the House will barely pass the resolution with almost all Democrats and the bare minimum of Republicans. The Syrian strikes will be carried out just like they’ve been described. They’ll be limited with minimal casualties. They will cripple Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future and the attacks will help the rebels overthrow Syria. The future government will be an extremist government that hates America and Israel but the region will be more stable than with a continuation of the Syrian civil war. No one in media or the left will credit Obama with keeping his word, admit they were wrong or acknowledge that this was the right decision. The professional left and most of the left blogs will spend the remaining of Obama’s term getting more and more hysterical trying to convince the rest of the Democratic Party base that Obama is worse than Bush.
Based on Obama’s track record of being right and the professional left and left bloggers being wrong, that’s what I predict happens anyway.
tybee
@Cacti:
you should volunteer to lead the attacks on syria. that would accomplish two things.
tybee
@Betty Cracker:
excellent.
Keith G
@askew:
And what about the Obama dead enders who somehow have been able to claim that Obama’s redline was just a ploy, that Obama was trying to back Congress into a corner. That Obama and his unicorns would….oh hell it’s too silly to even try to remember all that silly crap.
Will they reassess their view or will they simply rewrite history as that slap each other on the back while they proclaim, “He’s the man!”
Villago Delenda Est
@askew:
Well, so you say now. The crystal ball is hazy. How precisely will Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons be crippled? You can’t say, because you (and everyone else screaming to DO SOMETHING) have not the slightest fucking clue as to how this will come to pass.
Oh, perhaps Assad will be overthrown, but by who? Syria’s civil war will simply enter a new phase as Assad is dead and the various factions fight over the corpse of the country. The underlying issues that caused all this shit will not be treated, the seriously militant Sunnis will engaged in a bloodbath of Alawites and Christians and Sunnis who aren’t Sunni enough for their tastes, and again people will shout for us to DO SOMETHING!.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
The fool, the wise man, the beggar, or king. Whether poor or rich, all’s the same in death.
Corner Stone
@askew: Based on this assessment I think the only clear conclusion to be made is that you should invest in a new pair of knee pads.
tybee
@fuckwit:
but you are probably correct.
Ted & Hellen
@askew:
Can you just honestly summarize why you are so personally invested in the success or failure of PBO individually?
Ted & Hellen
@Corner Stone:
lol
Lady Bug
@askew:
Agree that it will probably pass the Senate, but not so sure about the House.
Similarly, Clinton did receive Senate authorization for use of force in Kosovo, but the House voted him down.
tybee
@Ted & Hellen:
why bother, all you have to do is look up from your kneeling position and tell him.
Keith G
@Villago Delenda Est: You are right. There are no guarentess. Well, except one.
If the current trend in the Syrian-Turkey-Jordan-Lebanon neighborhood is not at the very least slowed up a bit, Jordan could easily become destabilized and we depend on a stabile Jordan for several things such as helping with the Palestinian/Israeli settlement negotiations. I do not see how what little success that Obama has had in that regard can be preserved if Syria’s massive out migration destabilizes Jordan. It doesn’t take much a crystal ball to see that.
Will Obama’s Plan A help? I hope so since doing nothing will have it’s own very bleak outcome.
Ted & Hellen
@tybee:
You forgot the part where I pause to wipe his man seed from my lips…
Donut
@Ted & Hellen:
Says the guy who is constantly railing about them supposed failures of Obama?
You are an amazing piece of s…something.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@tybee: That is really fucking hot.
the MEitcong
@Lady Bug:
I think that’s an excellent editorial, and it captures something that has been on my mind: just how f***ed we are in so many, many ways as a result of the Bush years and that administration’s casual and deliberate abuse of both the domestic and international political spheres.
Personally, I think that the Obama administration is approaching this deliberately, seriously, and cautiously; and is threading the needle on this about as carefully as they can. Long term, I think they come out ahead, politically – short term, I think they take a hit no matter what the outcome of the congressional vote. I think that’s part of the calculus.
It occurs to me that much of what we are seeing, in the back and forth on this, is so much a direct result of the Bush burden, as the author puts it: I think that underneath the rhetoric, there are well-intentioned people who initially supported the Iraq war, realized they were burned, and now want bend over backwards to either make amends for that, or to ensure that they are never caught out in the same position. Similarly, I think there are well-intentioned people who opposed the Iraq debacle from the start, who remain frustrated at how massive, organized opposition to that war was ignored and was ineffectual. I wonder if – at some level – there is not a sense for many people that “we didn’t stop that one, but we’ll sure as hell stop this one.”
Cacti
@tybee:
You should visit some of the victims and explain to them the wisdom of doing nothing.
Betty Cracker
@feebog: Yeah, “Spacewalrus” is clearly a goddamn foreign policy savant.
feebog
@ MEitcong:
Well stated. I was one of those who vehemently opposed the Iraq invasion. My come-Jesus-moment was Powell’s presentation to the UN, specifically, the drawings of “mobile chemical weapons platforms’ that looked like a third grader had prepared. That and the “yellowcake uranium” from Niger, which we already knew to be false. For many people, those who supported the war (looking at you John Cole) and those who did not, the well has been poisoned.
But this is not Iraq. And Obama is not Bush. There is credible evidence that chemical weapons were used and that the Assad regime is responsible. There is no credible evidence that Obama wants to do any more than send a serious message to Assad about the use of chemical weapons. Different situation, different Presidents. I trust this President, I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I trust that he is going about this deliberately and carefully. I’m not going to let the duplicity of GWB taint my judgment about this President’s intentions.
feebog
@ Betty Cracker:
It is rather amazing that people can’t have a civil discussion about this issue. How about taking at face value that people, and that includes our current President, can have good faith beliefs one way or the other? If this was RedState I would expect this type of vitriol. Of course half the commenters would have been banned by comment 200. At any rate, I appreciate your take on this, I just don’t think Russia is going to budge one inch on this, Assad is going to stay in power if they have any say about it.
Corner Stone
@the MEitcong:
Good sweet fucking Christ. Are you serious? And by serious I mean “serious”.
Because you sound stupidly fucking mental.
Corner Stone
@the MEitcong:
There were none of those. Absolutely fucking none.
There were politicians, neocons and fucking idiots.
No well intentioned person could look at the case for war in Iraq and also look at themselves in the mirror.
Corner Stone
@Betty Cracker: Hey. spacewalrus already rubutted you.
patroclus
If the bombing resolution goes down, then the U.S. is unlikely to respond militarily regarding Syria’s recent use of chemical weapons. Hopefully, we will then respond with some of the stuff I’ve been advocating in these threads – awaiting the UN report, going to the Security Council and shaming the Russians with real evidence, more refugee aid, some arms to some rebels, creating a war crimes tribunal, finding more allies for future responses, pursuing a legal claim under the Convention’s procedures, greater security in the area, altering the inspectors’ mission to allow them to assess blame, implementing economic sanctions, and more.
Politically, it will be a hit short-term for both Obama and the U.S. generally because it sets a bad precedent of allowing the unfettered use of chemical weapons. But in the long run, the war is far from over and more precedents can be set. And, if we do the stuff mentioned above, the stage will be much better set for greater action later if needed.
There is no guarantee that bombing will solve anything. And a few weeks or months or years delay doesn’t mean that it can’t ever be done. I prefer waiting and re-assessing until after sanctions and diplomacy have had a better chance to be effective. Just debating it has vastly raised the issue’s profile – it can be reconsidered again and again; especially if Syria continues to use chemical weapons.
the MEitcong
@Corner Stone:
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
It doesn’t mean anything, but it’s noted.
Cheers!
Corner Stone
@the MEitcong: Ok, I agree. That may have been a little much, given the context. I apologize for that.
But I think, with where we are now, the only actual response to something so fucking stupid is a clear GFY.
patroclus
@the MEitcong: I agree with this – by raising the profile of the issue, Obama is doing his job to effectuate the purpose of the Chemical Weapons treaties. He’ll take a short-term hit, but in the long run, he’s doing the right thing in vastly publicizing the issue.
But bombing, in my view, isn’t likely to be particularly productive, and there is no reason to be in a rush to do it. In seeking authorization to do bombing so quickly, he’s acting rashly. I would prefer him to take other action now, so I would like to see Congress deny him the authority to do the bombing. The issue is almost certainly going to be re-visited and he’ll have a better case then.
the MEitcong
@Corner Stone:
Long, long time lurker, first time poster. Fan of many who comment here, yourself included (sometimes).
No desire to curry your ill favor, but…to me, there are people who initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, who have had the sense – and character – to come forth with acknowledgments that they were wrong. Andrew Sullivan, for one…..and I believe our esteemed blog host is another?
For me, although I disagreed with them at the time, I can accept that they were acting in good faith and a sincere belief that it was the right course of action. They were mistaken. They admit it. I reserve my powder for those who will not admit they were wrong, and instead double down.
I recently listened to an older Fresh Air interview with the author of a book about America in the years leading up to WWII – we had a very strong non-interventionist streak going at that time. I don’t point it out to try and say that Assad is somehow the second coming of Hitler – that’s nonsense. Rather, it was illuminating because it showed how very good people can be very wrong for good reasons. I mean, heck, I’m in favor of strong international norms – it occurs to me that I support the president here just because I want to see a revitalization of international norms and therefore want to see him succeed.
Lady Bug
@patroclus:
I would like to see all of those come to fruition, but on expanding the U.N. mandate so that they can have an investigation to assign blame instead of just stating that chemical weapons were used, wouldn’t that involve the Security Council? Wouldn’t Russia veto the vote? Likewise for any war crimes tribunal/international criminal court?
patroclus
I think changing the mission of the inspectors would require Security Council action and if Russia wants to veto a proposed resolution, I think we should have the debate and force them to do publically, in full view of the world. Just assuming a veto and avoiding the debate gives Russia a diplomatic pass; which they haven’t earned. I do not think Russian approval is required to bring a preliminary case before the Hague’s ICC, but forming a new multilateral body specifically for the purpose of Syria would. In either case, let’s push for a criminal prosecution, and implement a special juridical body to do the investigation.
Lady Bug
@the MEitcong:
It’s the boy who cried wolf theory. Another consequence of the Iraq War. BTW just to illustrate the point: one of the polling done initially after chemical attacks, more Americans believed (at the time) that Iraq had WMD than Assad launched a chemical attack.
I know that this is a completely meaningless gesture, but I would hope at the very least that Congress would pass a resolution condemning Assad for using chemical weapons. It seems just like the kind of symbolic, yet meaningless action congress loves to take. I’m surprised no one has offered one.
Lady Bug
@patroclus:
Thanks for the reply. Although as bad as things are with the Security Council right now vis a vis Russia & Syria, it doesn’t quite compare to the shitstorm that was 1994, when the genocidal Hutu power government in Rwanda sat in one of the rotating seats of the security council.
Yatsuno
Sigh. No TBogg unit. I blame lack of recent comments.
John S.
What a bunch of fucking babies most of you are. The lack of critical thinking taught in our educational institutions is really showing here.
If we do something, there will be consequences. If we do nothing, there will be consequences. So it really comes down to a choice between hopefully the lesser of two evils. But whatever road we go down, there will be negative consequences. That is the only thing that is 100% certain here.
So figure out whether you are more comfortable with the harm caused by doing something than the harm allowed by doing nothing, and table the sanctimony. Because either way, innocent people are going to die.
SiubhanDuinne
@eemom:
@eemom:
No. Actually it wasn’t. Actually it was during a nationally-televised, prime-time speech on health care, almost precisely four years ago.
SiubhanDuinne
@eemom:
Sorry, eemom, didn’t intend to pile on. On my first VERY fast scroll through comments, I completely missed Bill’s and Momsense’s and your own reply.
And just tangentially, but those kinds of memory problems are the worst. Not forgetting facts or being unable to dredge up a name, but the kind of memory where you are Absolutely.Convinced.It.Was.This.Way, and it turns out to be quite something else.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
… and the WMDs will be unsecured. without Assad’s army, the chemical weapons that we will certainly fail to destroy will be picked-up by anyone who wants them.
unless we send people in to pick them up. which we won’t.
cleek
@eemom:
no apologies needed.
i had to double check my memory before posting. t’was a long time ago.
tybee
@Ted & Hellen:
no need to wipe, you licked if from your lips.
Lady Bug
@John S.:
True that.
BTW, the E.U. just issued a unanimous statement condemning the chemical weapons attack and that all available evidence points to the Assad regime as being the culprits. The mentioned the need for a strong response, but didn’t mention what that response should be and also said that any response should wait until after the UN Report, which will probably come out in about two weeks.
Barry
@Scotty: “Long term it’s win-win for Obama. One, it gets him off the hook for his prior rhetoric that forced him to propose action with Syria even though no measurable good could come of it. And two, if Assad uses more chemical weapons Obama can say ‘I told you so’. Short term it’ll be a “loss”, but another topic will draw everyone’s interest and his “loss” will soon be forgotten. ”
Agreed. I think that Obama a year ago felt that he had to do ‘something’, and drew a line in the sand which he didn’t think that Assad would cross. Then he mishandled the ‘oh, sh*t!’ moment.
Barry
@Cacti: “And Betty Cracker, John Cole, mistermix, and Anne Laurie can all high five each other that thousands of people were gassed without any consequences. Knee jerk isolationism. It’s the new knee jerk warmongering. ”
I’m declaring Godwin II. Anybody use uses ‘appeasement’, ‘Munich’, ‘never again’ or ‘isolationism’ loses the argument.
Jebediah
@cleek:
No, that one is on my brother. He refused to not watch that MC Hammer video.
Ksmiami
@Jockey Full of Malbec: I give him 4 months to live or repatriate…. What.a.tool
Lady Bug
Putin, Syria and conspiracy theories: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/09/putin-the-syria-conspiracy-theory-problem.html