Senior GOP Senators: We Won't Support Military Strikes Without 'Overall Strategy' To Remove Assad
Source: Business Insider
In a joint statement released Saturday, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) commended the president for seeking congressional approval for actions against Syria, but expressed strong disapproval of limited military action.
The senators wrote that they believe Obama is correct in the assessment that Assad has used chemical weapons and this requires a military response. But they have continued to call for a more robust military response to "shift the balance of power."
Here's the statement:
We believe President Obama is correct that the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons requires a military response by the United States and our friends and allies. Since the President is now seeking Congressional support for this action, the Congress must act as soon as possible.
However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America's friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.
Both McCain and Graham are senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-gop-senators-we-will-not-support-limited-strikes-without-overall-strategy-to-remove-assad-2013-8
dkf
(37,305 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)We're talking bombing Damascus....an act of war.
It won't be enough blood to sate them, but it will be a start!
on point
(2,506 posts)Snoopy 7
(527 posts)It's always been about regime change the US has been funding the "original rebels" since 2011 and it's about this:
Leaked E-Mails: Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests---NOT--- chemical weapon concern
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
Alternative links (for those of you who hate the Guardian):
http://con4lib.com/why-the-west-really-wants-syria/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html
frazzled
(18,402 posts)These guys are a riot.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)We want a REAL war, dammit! Must. Kill. MORE. People.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)starve the programs for the people like Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Of course, no war taxes to be paid by their pals all lined up with their hands out.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . the President agrees to their corporate imperialist scheme to overthrow Assad and replace him with a puppet, regardless of what the Syrian people want?
Go ahead and hold your breath, guys. I hope you suffocate. And I hope while you stalling the situation resolves itself without any unwanted help from the United States.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Freedom Fries For Them!
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)So one side says no violence not never no matter what and the other no violence unless you kill every thing in your way.
sucks to be stuck in the middle.
good times.
I just hope, and god forbid, if we ever have another civil war within the united states that nobody from DU dares ask for help from an outside ally if people are being gassed to death on mass by our government :p
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)If we do another "regime change" we are officially the worlds dictator. Fucking armed thugs using force to shape our will and settle our little child fears.
Fucking weak amurkans. I hate my country of birth.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Our elected officials appear not to give a damn.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)They'd still be against it.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)That is not our call.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)They've been signaling that for days anyway.
Then dare McCain to vote against it. Very little downside here to speak of, politically.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)yoloisalie
(55 posts)What else can you expect from the dumb and dumber of the US senate.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Obama needs to operate with the understanding that they will destroy him in any way possible and if that means fucking up this country or any other, well to them that's just collateral damage.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)before these idiots in DC agree on anything.
Rebl
(149 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)old guard Republicans want Assad's head. Tea Party doesn't want any involvement.
Dems despite caring about children seem to be ignoring this one. Might have to sit out 2014 if this happens. With 42 % support this is Russian Roulette we can't afford to lose.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm so pleased that Obama is seeking a congressional decision to act in Syria.
That is what the Constitution requires in my opinion, and that means that our members of Congress can decide each based on his own conscience about what the facts are and whether those facts justify war. I'm so pleased that Obama is handling this as he is.
Obama is in a bit of cocoon in the White House. He is surrounded by people who want war. That's how the generals justify their salaries and their budgets. That's how officers get promoted -- winning and fighting wars. Let Congress which is at least in theory under less pressure from the MIC make the final decision.
I'm still unconvinced that we really know who used the chemical weapons. But my Congressman is a liberal. I trust him. If he votes for military action, I will support it.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)Billy Love
(117 posts)After all, like Alan Grayson said, we are not the FUCKING WORLD POLICE!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)None, no matter how much we stroke our missiles and pretend we do.
longship
(40,416 posts)No matter how you paint this, it ain't gonna turn out well for the GOP.
Or, as the imortal Snagglepuss once put it, Self-inflicted Bar-B-Que. They are cooking their own goose.
Heavens to murgatroyd! Exit stage left.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)SDjack
(1,448 posts)That would stop all the GOP - Teabaggers - chickenhawks in their tracks.
Can you say Whoa baby!
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)The other day I called Obama politically naive. I have to take that back. This was a brilliant move, both political and judicious. It forces GOP rifts out into the open. McCain/Graham will be at it against Cruz/Paul. It will be political theater at its finest. They clearly would have preferred to have seen him just do this on his own and get whatever political ammo they could out of it.
Tough shit. You have to share in this responsibility. And if anything is obvious - congress doesn't want to share in the responsibility of anything. I dare the neocon wing to vote against this resolution. But they know they can't resist another war. It's just too enticing.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Although I am VERY critical of many of Pres. Obama's policies, in this case, Obama / Biden are being consistent with their previous statements:
Barack Obama, with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Joe Biden, TV interview in 2007: The president has no constitutional authority
to take this nation to war
unless were attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.
So GOOD on them for going this far. I say Congress needs to pass a "Declaration Of War" - but, tragically, that part of the Constitution has been ignored for a very long time. The next Dem-Pres-nominee needs to swear to end this practice. Are we going to let the "Tea Party" grab the moral high-ground on this one, as they have with the NSA? The "left" can have much greater legitimacy on these than the "right" ever could - especially if we include ending Corporate-spying and Corporate-wars in our message - an angle the "Tea Party" candidates won't talk about, given their fawning devotion to Koch et al.
As to the McCain warmongers and "national security" - it would be nice if they explained exactly how American's lives are threatened by Assad, and made "safer" by aiding Jihadists.
Keep in mind, the greater "Libya Plan" is a Cheney gig (extending Brzenzki's "Arc of Crisis" , regardless of the "spin" the Ds (humanitarian) or Rs (national security) put on it. Seymour Hersh did a piece in the New Yorker back in 2007 which all should read for background. Here are some relevant pieces:
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The redirection, as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabias government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
...
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is a new strategic alignment in the Middle East, separating reformers and extremists; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were on the other side of that divide. (Syrias Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.
Translation of Orwellian DoubleSpeak: "They will not sell out their people to the Transnational Corporations We Serve, so WE Will Destabilze THEM." (Exxon named a freaking Oil-tanker after Condoleeza Rice, btw)
Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.
...
Walid Jumblatt, who is the leader of the Druze minority in Lebanon ... said, We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syriaand to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.
...
the Saudi government, with Washingtons approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.
Also remember that Syria was a French Colony, as created by the Secret Treaty known as the "Sykes-Picot Agreement." Yes, "they" do conspire on big things, and it ain't just some 'theory', either. This explains a lot of recent French military activity, as well as their current regime's interest in this war, to spite their citizens' objections.
The good news in all of this, is that the legitimacy of currently existing "states" as "representing" their citizens, is being severely undermined by Internet-communications and current state-activity. Discussions like this tie in the pieces of the picture which the media "they" own doesn't include in the P.R.-crafted so-called "analysis" provided for their cattle, er, I mean "citizens."
"They" know which way the wind is blowing - and I think "upholding the legitimacy of the system" has a lot to do with this call for a Congressional vote. Now, we just have to hold the Congress-people's feet to the fire - which is a bit easier, as their votes can be used against them - locally - in the next election.
On that front, why is Pelosi still winning Dem-primaries out of San Francisco, of all places?? Gotta fix that, eh?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)(unless of course, a battle-campaign
longer than 30 days is planned)
it is a waste of time
and it annoys the Congress
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)They are dying to kill more soldiers needlessly and to dump untold billions more down the drain.
I guess it's their way of forcing the Democratic president to be as incompetent as the Republican ones.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I want both these damn zombies to be IGNORED.