Cantor's statement reads:
While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.
“Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor.
Click here for the rest of Eric Cantor's statement.“Bashar Assad's Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is the epitome of a rogue state, and it has long posed a direct threat to American interests and to our partners. The ongoing civil war in Syria has enlarged this threat.
Meanwhile, todays Wall Street Journal Opinion page, is urging republicans to put aside their political differences with Obama and vote to send the rest of the world the right signal.
Mr. Obama is betting that the GOP rift will divert attention from the most pertinent aspect of this debate: the extent to which his own party abandons him. The president's withdrawal from the world stage—his exit from Afghanistan and Iraq, in particular—has nurtured the Democratic Party's worst instincts and left it even more resistant to a call for military action. Mr. Obama is counting on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to corral votes for him, but the liberal Democratic wing is not a sure bet.
Americans do not want to think that the president is making grave decisions about military action and U.S. standing on the basis of political calculation. Yet Mr. Obama has treated Syria as a political problem from the start, viewing it almost solely as a liability to the administration's public-opinion polling, its presidential electioneering and its rival domestic priorities. Viewing Mr. Obama's punt to Congress as anything but political is almost impossible. And yet the president again lectures Congress to rise above the "partisan" politics that he has, with great calculation, dumped on them.
The challenge for Republicans is to do just that, to remember (no matter how painful) that this is not a vote about the president or his machinations. The only question before Republicans is this: Will they send a message to the world's despots that America will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction? If they will not send that message, they risk complicity in this president's failed foreign policy.Wall Street Journal
62 comments:
As I said, blackmail, unless you think the NSA is only spying on the hoi polloi.
Cantor's or Boehner's votes, however, are less consequential than the local guys and there lies the rub.
Even Charlie Rangel is against this one.
You see, this is where the Hutus were really smart.
You use machetes and nobody gives a shit.
It wasn't very long ago, when Sec of State Hillary said that Assad was a reformer. Piss off, Cantor.
FWIW, The Whigs and the Choom Gang have been outvoted, Thank God for the United States Army .
The Daily Kos people aren't behind this. They save their vitriol for Republicans, but they are not for a Syrian strike.
They do seem resigned that the backstrage horsetrading has already taken place and Obama will get approval. Judging by Cantor's and Boehner's positions, the Kossacks may be right.
My impression is that whatever the elites are up to, ordinary citizens in Europe and America are opposed.
I don't believe one word from the mouth's of anyone in this administration. Bengazi?? Remember when they were positive it was caused by a video? Not so much. They lie without even blinking an eye. They lie and do not care about the consequences to anyone but themselves.
NSA. Not spying on us. Nope. No way. IRS....not intimidating people for political purpose. Couldn't happen. This is the most corrupt administration that we have EVER had. And we have probably the dumbest bunch of yahoos in Congress and that it QUITE a feat.
Obama is waltzing us into WWIII, for no real reason, and the idiot Republicans are two stepping right along with him.
We are so screwed.
Apparently, Choom decided on the vote in Congress in a fit of pique.
This is where he starts to get dangerous. He's mad at everybody not doing it his way and he's gonna make 'em pay.
They noticed this in grade school. him and the Schicklgruber kid in Linz.
And this could be fun, if it pans out, proff Choom is/was a Moslem Bro.
Obama is waltzing us into WWIII, for no real reason, and the idiot Republicans are two stepping right along with him.
More than a few commentators have made ominous allusions to the tinderbox startup of World War I.
I said when Obama became president that the most serious danger was foreign policy. So far he has progressively degraded our position in the world, which I consider dangerous, but nothing big has blown up ... yet.
3 1/2 years to go.
Fingers crossed.
Crazy like a fox?
Seriously, there has to be some sort of political reason why these guys are going to vote yes. Give Obama the rope to hang himself with or something like that.
I suspect most of us that thought Iraq was the right choice in 2003 have changed our minds about what kind of crimes constitute American involvement.
The world must be made safe for Al-Qaeda!
So no more criticism of Israel if they take out Iran's developing nuclear bomb program?
What about N Korea?
They have to use them before that can be done?
Just wondering.
AllenS said...
It wasn't very long ago, when Sec of State Hillary said that Assad was a reformer. Piss off, Cantor.
Along the same lines Nancy Pelosi visited Assad during the Bush Administration specifically to undermine the President. It was more important to her to impede Bush than it was to influence Syria. It says a lot about her and those who support her.
s/b proof, not proff.
Birches said...
Crazy like a fox?
Seriously, there has to be some sort of political reason why these guys are going to vote yes. Give Obama the rope to hang himself with or something like that.
According to HotAir it's the normal political calculus.
Actually, I see this is like PelosiCare. If the Demos want it, give it to them. Let not a single republican take "credit" for it.
PS This is cute. Lurch can't rule out ground troops if Syria "implodes", whatever the Hell that means.
Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
Kerry just said they are not contemplating a scenario where they don't get the vote to provide Obama the option to bomb Syria.
Does that mean they are making it up as they go along?
Both parties are very comfortable with the idea of America as an empire. Nothing else can explain the Republican establishment types getting on board so quickly and easily. But let's say this empire "adventure" devolves into a major war with proxies for Russia, Iran and China weaponized by them and fighting American troops. Would non-ruling class America put up with that? Or would there be revolt at home? I mean something way beyond protests here and there. We shall see, because the ruling class wants what it wants and screw us.
Rand Paul is chopping Kerri's arguments to bits.
Republicans are providing him cover and helping him out. No one outside of McCain and few crazy neo-cons wants to be involved in a Syrian Civil war.
Republicans - always trying to keep people from voting them; and succeeding.
Its good to see the Republicans blurring the lines and supporting Obama, so its turns out bad, they can't blame him.
It confirms my opinion, that the Republicans are the stupid party and just exist to make sure the graft is spread around evenly.
As for Cantor, who the hell is he, and who elected him to be one of the primary faces of the Republican party? 'cause that "who" was an idiot.
Here's the Hot Air speculation edutcher linked:
If Boehner backs him and the predictable clusterfark ensues, well, that's O's problem. If Boehner and the GOP oppose him and block the use of force, and then Assad gasses another 10,000 Syrians, the White House will inevitably accuse Republicans of being accomplices to mass murder.
That's a non-crazy analysis but I still don't like it. John Bolton says no and I agree with him.
It's not a good idea to give this president grants of power. Anything he does will explode in his face.
If the world's still here after the next presidential election, maybe we can rejoin it.
What's that saying? Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds? Nah that ain't it- I think anyone who has been in the Imperial City for ten years or more is brainwashed to think lockstep. Thank God for people like Rand Paul.
I am sick of our serial Mideast mis-adventures. Stop this crap already and yes Ricpic even an old fart like me will get out and protest this when it gets big and I bet it will!
Taranto comes out as a hawk:
Best of the Web
"If Boehner and the GOP oppose him and block the use of force, and then Assad gasses another 10,000 Syrians, the White House will inevitably accuse Republicans of being accomplices to mass murder. "
And who'll care? The low-information "Independents" who don't even know where Syria is? The weak-Kneed RINO's who bolt the GOP at every opportunity?
I can't think of anything dumber than the Repubs doing something because OTHERWISE the Dem's will accuse them of allowing something bad to happen. As if the Dem's don't already do this, 24/7.
When you have Chuck Hagel on your team, you no longer have standing to call the other team "stupid." Especially when Chuck is objectively smarter than you are.
"Smart Europhile Democrats" is pretty much a dead theme.
The establishment Republicans are gaming the situation, as always, in the interests of the beltway establishment, safe in the knowledge that there will always be a large segment of the population that will ultimately turn out to vote for the lesser of two weevils (Obama/McCain.) But how safe is that assumption anymore. Hallo, Mr. Graham? Do you have any marketable skills?
This is so fucking tiring. 500,000 to 1 Million died in the Rwandan genocide i 1994 and nobody did jack diddly shit. Essentially the same people are still in power. What REALLY is their motivation to avenge a 1000 or so deaths purportedly by sarin gas?
Political warriors really piss me off.
What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?
-- Obama
Probably the same message that was sent when Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988 and hardly anyone cared.
I sure do remember all the Democrats who opposed or flipped over to oppose attacks on Hussein in 1990 and 2003.
The next paragraph in Cantor's statement:
“The Syrian conflict is not merely a civil war; it is a sectarian proxy war that is exacerbating tensions throughout the Muslim world. It is clear Iran is a principal combatant in this conflict, and its direct involvement is an integral part of Iran’s bid to establish regional hegemony. Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hizballah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted."
Sounds just right to me. And I'd classify an exacerbation of "tensions throughout the Muslim world" as a direct threat to the U.S. Has everyone forgotten the underlying causes of 9/11?
Lydia: The problem is that just about everything "exacerbates tensions throughout the Muslim world."
You can be sure that an attack on Syria will do so as well.
With the exeption of Rand Paul, the republicans are mostly ninnies.
It's weaselly language. I object to the use of the phrase "direct threat" here. Manipulative. And effective.
And also what creeley said.
Does that mean they are making it up as they go along?
It means they're incompetent administrators to not even conceptualize not having everything go exactly their way.
You know what will really calm down tensions in the Muslim world?
The USA bombing/invading Syria and killing thousands of Muslims.
'cause there's nothing Muslim extremists love more then the USA.
I'm with creele and Bolton,
As for Taranto's moral case, if we're not going to do anything of substance to stop this, all it ends up being it the sort of futile, meaningless gesture that made John Blutarsky a US Senator.
Not to mention the fact nobody said anything nasty about Bush 41 when he didn't restart the Gulf War because Saddam gassed the Kurds.
There always calm after that.
CF: Pan Am flight 103, 9-11, etc,etc.
Ace has a funny post up about Hagel and Kerry's testimony. You gotta laugh. About all we've got left. :)
What if this is just anothr pork bill masquereding as a war authorization or whatever.
Thats anothr thing. Rand Paul touched on it. They are voting on a non binding like resolution. Obama is still going to do whatever he wants.
You know, the funny thing is that a declaration of war doesn't actually have to be called a declaration of war. It doesn't have to be called anything, IIRC. It was an unfortunate lapse on the part of the Founders.
Lem said...
What if this is just anothr pork bill masquereding as a war authorization or whatever.
Thats anothr thing. Rand Paul touched on it. They are voting on a non binding like resolution. Obama is still going to do whatever he wants.
That's what happens if they vote, "No", too.
You know, war is a serious business, and we'd best leave it to our very seriously minded betters. Er, bettors.
The Ace piece I think dary was referring to.
PS If Choom has any sense, on the way to or from the G20, he and Moochelle will avoid Sarajevo.
Also, a report on how well Libya is doing. Short version: Not very well, and probably headed back to civil war.
According to news reports, the CIA has operatives on the ground training Syrian rebels to fight against the Assad regime. Unbelievable.
The US government is actively engaged in the overthrow of the legitimate government of a country.
The CIA is training the opposition - al Qaeda - the same al Qaeda that brought down the World Trade Center. The same al Qaeda whose leaders The US has been hunting down and killing. The same al Qaeda that killed four Americans in the embassy in Benghazi.
This administration has lost its fucking mind. As has the Republican leadership. We are screwed.
Hey Lydia -
You quoted Cantor: "Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hizballah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted."
I thought Assad was already "on top". Isn't he president or something?
So Cantor's on board with "regime change"?
Haz, the Administration claims that the CIA is training affirmed and confirmed 'moderates', as opposed to extremist elements.
Of course, this leads to several questions:
How well were these people vetted? How well COULD they be vetted in that environment? Remember that Djoker Tsarnaev was vetted by all required US government agencies before taking the oath of citizenship last Spetember 11 - and a few months before helping bomb the Boston Marathon.
Also, what constitutes a moderate? Moderate for Syria? Moderate for the Middle East? Self-professed moderation? Moderate by the standards of a CIA field agent? Agency guidelines? State Department guidelines? Guidelines pulled out of Joe Biden's ass?
What guarantee do we have that these moderates will pursue their agenda in a way that will at the least not embarrass the USA?
Do these moderates have enough political support to be a factor in a post-Assad Syria, should it get that far? Or will they simply be useful idiots until Assad is gone?
And any of dozens of other questions, more and less pertinent.
Really, calling this amateur hour is an insult to amateurs. Most amateur hobbyists actually give a damn about what they're doing.
And the big question is this: Should the Assad regime be toppled, how can we be certain that the chemical weapons will end up in the hands of 'responsible' people, that is, people who will be certain to let international agencies take the weapons and dispose of them, instead of letting various AQ types and the like get their hands on them?
Unless there is an answer to this question that is really, SERIOUSLY convincing, we need to let the Russians and the Iranians keep Assad in power. Better the devil we know, and the devil we can punish, have these weapons than the next bin Laden get his hands on them. And there have already been reports of Turkish border agents catching 'rebels' with Sarin gas canisters. This is what the Russians are complaining about, and given some of their experiences with Chechens, it is a legitimate concern for them, not just a move on the grand chess board of international relations.
Wow, it's as if Iraq never happened, how dare a US President engage in regime change!
Icepick - Moderates? Not sure they exist in the Islamic world. Moderates generally don't seek to topple a government by violent means. And who is calling the moderates? The people who want to justify this war.
Remember the Egyptian moderates who toppled Hosni Mubarak? Yeah, that turned out well.
Or the moderates Jimmy Carter supported when his administration toppled the Iranian government.
What a mess.
And the chem weapons? Topple Assad and some of those weapons will find their way to Europe and America in the hands of very bad people.
About whether there are any moderates in the Syrian opposition -- this person at the Institute for the Study of War says there are:
"Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards."
...
"Groups like Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, are all too happy to take credit for successes on the battlefield, and are quick to lay claim to opposition victories on social media. This has often led to the impression that these are spearheading the fight against the Syrian government. They are not."
...
"Moderate opposition forces—a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army—continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime."
Who knows?
Inga said...
Wow, it's as if Iraq never happened, how dare a US President engage in regime change!
The big difference being that Bush actually committed to regime change and followed through. Saddam is no more. Obama just promises to lob a few cruise missiles (or something "limited" to make a statement. If he actually means to do more, he's not saying, even when asked. You can't see that as duplicity, Inga? As much as you hated Bush, you got what he promised.
Basically, Obama has lost my trust.
If you take the view, reluctantly in my case, that our government and its various institutions, consistently lie to us, your world view will be considerably foreshortened.
I can count on one hand those few individuals, entities, that I might consider trustworthy. But don't ask, please, whom those few might be as it changes day to day. Not to suit my nature or beliefs, but from me trying, futilely, to make some sense of the insanity/madness that confronts me on a daily basis.
And realize that it is not myself I'm worried about, my life has not many years left.
It is the children I worry about, no matter the disabuse that statement deserves as corrupted by my supposed betters.
Fuck'em all I say, save six for pallbearers.
"The US government is actively engaged in the overthrow of the legitimate government of a country."
September 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM
This is what I was responding to.
And Chickie, when did you ever trust Obama? How can one lose what one never had? If there was some point when you trusted him, I'd be surprised.
Did anyone with a functioning brain ever "trust" a politician?
And Chickie, when did you ever trust Obama? How can one lose what one never had? If there was some point when you trusted him, I'd be surprised.
I trusted him at the outset of Libya -- or I didn't mistrust him and thought he needn't reveal his intentions. See here. But he lost me on Libya after Benghazi (which strangely, has murky ties with Syria).
Who knows?
Lydia, that's the problem. The moderates allegedly were leading the revolts in Egypt and Libya. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood seized control, and no one is in charge of Libya as it collapses.
A prior war and UN resolutions could also impact whether or not 'regime change' is the correct direction to take. (Iraq)
Or a cease fire agreement (not treaty) repeatedly violated.
Also, the stated goal of previous administrations, too.
Blogger hates me. Triple posts!
Wow, it's as if Iraq never happened, how dare a US President engage in regime change!
Inga: Democrats, like yourself, forget that regime change in Iraq was signed into American law by President Clinton. See the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Lydia said ... Who knows?
Anyone who is half assed aware of the history of Vietnam knows. The Viet Minh, later the PAVN, with an irregular force of Vietcong, were NOT the only party rebelling against the French with force, however, they did succeed in crushing their opposition, defeating the French, ran us off, and subsequently defeated the South Vietnamese. Great western powers decided on the two parties, making it easy for both to crush their oppositions north and south. Great western powers were and are fucking idiots. Read the memoirs of General Vo Nguyen Giap. The process is very clearly defined of how a small force grows to overwhelm all opposition and all enemies.
It still applies.
My entire life has been lived in the shadow of war, born in 1942, fought in 1968-1971, and paid for in taxes a series of stupid actions ever since. I am tired of it.
Either go ihn and blow every last enemy to smithereens, kill them all, or forget about it. This half assed diplomatic war making is absurd. You ALWAYS lose in the end.
Post a Comment