markpkessinger
markpkessinger's JournalHere is what the President could say to the nation on Tuesday that would go a long way towards...
... restoring my confidence in him as President. I thought of this when I was thinking about what the President would say to the nation on Tuesday. I really think he should not continue to try to sell us on his strategy. The American people are opposed, and are really pretty clear about why they are opposed. They have heard the President's argument, and they understand it. They simply disagree with it. So then I began wondering, what would I like to hear from the President? What would help restore some confidence in him as a leader. Here is what I came up with.
Many people, including some of my own staff, were shocked when last week I announced that I was presenting to Congress,my case for, and asking for its authorization for, limited military strikes against the government of Syria, in order to send a message to the Syrian government that the community of civilized nations will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by a government against its own people. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is critically important that President Bashar al Assad be forced to bear a heavy price for his use of those weapons, and it was and is my belief that a series of limited, targeted strikes against Syrian military installations would be the best way to impose that price.
I believe that that the evidence clearly establishes that the chemical attacks of several weeks ago were carried out by the Syrian government, and that we presented a solid case to Congress in support of our proposed action. However, many others have disagreed with my Administration's determination as to both the validity of that evidence, and/or the interpretation of it. And in the course of the past week, the American people have made their will abundantly clear that they are overwhelmingly opposed to the course of action I have proposed. Whenever the United States engages another country militarily, it is crucial to the success of the mission that the nation stands united behind that mission. To undertake any such mission without such support is a fool's errand. Therefore, in light of the vote by Congress against such military strikes, and in acknowledgment of the clearly voiced will of the American people, I am hereby withdrawing my proposal for limited military strikes against the government of Syria.
I remain utterly convinced, however, that the international community must take a firm stand against the use of chemical weapons. Therefore, in the coming days, I will be presenting to Congress and to foreign leaders a series of proposals for economic sanctions, including the freezing of President Bashar's assets held in other nations, as well as discussing any and all available diplomatic means that can be brought to bear in order to express the world's outrage over the use of chemical weapons.
Thank you.
If the President were to proceed against the wishes of Congress and the People . . .
. . . after having agreed to take the decision to Congress, merely because he didn't get the answer he wanted, I am fairly certain it would result in an impeachment effort. And in that event, much as it would pain me to do so, I would have to support such an effort. Proceeding against such overwhelming opposition would represent the absolute height of executive arrogance.
The President and John Kerry need to step back and remember that this is more than a mere executive/legislative turf war.
NYT: Pentagon Is Ordered to Expand Potential Targets in Syria With a Focus on Forces
'Limited engagement' my ass! The administration is running a con job!
WASHINGTON — President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria in response to intelligence suggesting that the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons while Congress debates whether to authorize military action.
Mr. Obama, officials said, is now determined to put more emphasis on the “degrade” part of what the administration has said is the goal of a military strike against Syria — to “deter and degrade” Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons. That means expanding beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list developed with French forces before Mr. Obama delayed action on Saturday to seek Congressional approval of his plan.
For the first time, the administration is talking about using American and French aircraft to conduct strikes on specific targets, in addition to ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. There is a renewed push to get other NATO forces involved.
The strikes would be aimed not at the chemical stockpiles themselves — risking a potential catastrophe — but rather the military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons and carried the attacks against Syrian rebels, as well as the headquarters overseeing the effort, and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, military officials said Thursday.
< . . . >
Read full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html
Reich: Cliff notes on a potentially disastrous decision
From Robert Reich's Facebook page:
13 hours ago · [/font]
Cliff notes on a potentially disastrous decision. (1) Were Syrian civilians killed by chemical weapons? Yes. (2) How many? Estimates vary. (3) Was Assad responsible? Probably but not definitely. (4) Should the world respond? Yes. (5) What’s the best response? Economic sanctions and a freeze on Syrian assets. (6) What are the advantages of bombing Syria with missiles? (a) Highly visible response, (b) no American troops on the ground. (7) What are the disadvantages? (a) Syrian civilians will inevitably be killed, (b) it will fuel more anti-American, anti-Western sentiment, thereby increasing the ranks of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, (c) our involvement will escalate if Assad or others use additional chemical weapons or engage in retribution against the us or Israel, (d) we have no exit strategy, (e) most of our allies aren’t with us, and we can’t be the world’s policeman everywhere, (f) it will distract us from critical problems at home, (g) the Syrian rebels are not our friends. (8) So why is Obama pursuing this so vigorously? (Your theory?)
Excellent question!
Tweeted by Kevin Jon Heller, Professor of Criminal Law, University of London, SOAS:
[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"](1/2) If the US gets to attack Syria to vindicate the fundamental international rule against chemical weapons, doesn't that mean other -- Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) -- September 4, 2013
[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"](2/2) states get to attack the US to vindicate the (even more) fundamental international rule against the illegal use of force? -- Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) -- September 4, 2013
Mental health officials identify new syndrome: "PDS"
</snark>
Obama hints at larger strategy to topple Assad in effort to win over Republicans
And there it is. We are being played for fucking fools. God help us.
From The Guardian:
[font size=3]President suggests strikes could lead to longer-term mission as
tough White House rhetoric begins to win over Republicans[/font]
Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday.
While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.
"It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region," he told senior members of Congress at a White House meeting on Tuesday.
Obama has long spoken of the US desire to see Assad step down, but this is the first time he has linked that policy objective to his threatened military strikes against Syria. It follows pressure on Monday, from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to make such a goal more explicit.
< . . . >
To the purveyors of the "moral obscenity" argument in favor of intervention...
. . . If you are going to embrace Secretary Kerry's (and the President's) position that the U.S. must take action in Syria because it is a "moral obsceniy," then you should be prepared to argue that the U.S. must intervene in all cases of human rights abuse by governments around the world, be they ally or adversary. You should be prepared to make the case that we should spend whatever it takes to respond to all of these abuses, even if it means bankrupting ourselves in doing so. To embrace Kerry's argument, and to be unprepared to argue the logical extension of that argument to the many other instances of moral obscenity that occur around the world, you expose yourself as a rank hypocrite.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,401
