Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
As it seeks votes of approval from Congress on Syria, the Obama administration is "open to working" with legislators to change the language that would authorize the president to use military force, replacing the broad and open-ended resolution with a narrower, limited one, a senior White House official told the Hill Monday.
The draft language of the resolution currently grants Obama permission to use "necessary and appropriate" force. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) indicated earlier that he planned to rewrite and narrow that language, specifically to match Obama's promise of "no boots on the ground" in Syria.
"The president made clear that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground or an open-ended intervention, and that he intends to undertake tailored military operations, limited in scope and duration," the official said, according to the Hill. "We are open to working with Congress on language for the (authorization) within the parameters the president has explained."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-open-to-narrowing-language-that-would-authorize
As it seeks votes of approval from Congress on Syria, the Obama administration is "open to working" with legislators to change the language that would authorize the president to use military force, replacing the broad and open-ended resolution with a narrower, limited one, a senior White House official told the Hill Monday.
The draft language of the resolution currently grants Obama permission to use "necessary and appropriate" force. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) indicated earlier that he planned to rewrite and narrow that language, specifically to match Obama's promise of "no boots on the ground" in Syria.
"The president made clear that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground or an open-ended intervention, and that he intends to undertake tailored military operations, limited in scope and duration," the official said, according to the Hill. "We are open to working with Congress on language for the (authorization) within the parameters the president has explained."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-open-to-narrowing-language-that-would-authorize
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 811 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes (Original Post)
ProSense
Sep 2013
OP
Will it be the "least-untruthful" language he can share with Congress? nt
MannyGoldstein
Sep 2013
#1
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)1. Will it be the "least-untruthful" language he can share with Congress? nt
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. What are you talking about? Leahy is rewriting the authority. n/t
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)3. Uh huh. It always starts this way.
We were going to be involved with Iraq for just a few weeks, remember?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)4. Yeah,
"Uh huh. It always starts this way. We were going to be involved with Iraq for just a few weeks, remember?"
... I remember comments like this about the Libya no-fly zone.
The President isn't launching a war. Accept that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)5. Vigilance and pushback are important.
McCain: Obama to Send New Arms to Syrian Rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584769
Obama, ex-rival McCain united as hawks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580983
For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
ProSense
(116,464 posts)6. Are you implying
For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"?
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"?
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)7. Deja bullshit.
US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023585737
For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
McCain: Obama to Send New Arms to Syrian Rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584769
Obama, ex-rival McCain united as hawks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580983
ProSense
(116,464 posts)8. Are you implying
For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"? You posted that link. Is that what you're implying?
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665
...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"? You posted that link. Is that what you're implying?
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
ProSense
(116,464 posts)9. Kick! n/t