Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Well, I guess it's up to the right wing loons in the House to strike a blow for sanity on Syria

As they did on TARP, and more recently on the Fourth Amendment, let us recall, while the Progresive Caucus folded like deck chairs.* Pravda:

Senate committee approves resolution authorizing U.S. strike on Syria
Acting hours after Obama, during a visit to Sweden, said the credibility of Congress and the international community was also at stake, the committee voted 10 to 7, with one member voting “present,” to approve using force against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The resolution now goes to the full Senate. The House is separately considering a similar resolution.

Why is the credibility of Congress at stake? Or the "international community," whatever the Fuck that means, at stake? Did they draw the red line?

The thing I find so utterly baffling about this whole affair is how unmotivated it is. I mean, Obama can't possibly be acting from principle -- that would be absurd -- and while there are explanations about pipelines floating around, that doesn't explain the timing. A month ago, nada. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, official Washington starts stroking its chin and saying "Hmm. Maybe whacking Assad would be a good idea. Why not now, and besides, he gassed his own people." What's the driver here? What am I missing?

I mean, at least Bush had the common human decency to use invading Iraq was a tool to get re-elected. What's Obama's excuse?

NOTE * Is it ever possible for Democrats not to suck? Besides Alan Grayson?

UPDATE FT:

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec75a250-1588-11e3-950a-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz...

According to CNN’s tally of declared House votes, 64 Republicans are definite no votes versus only 9 definite yeses. There are 160 undecideds. Most are assuming at least 40 Democratic doves will vote against the Syria resolution. That means Mr Obama will need the support of at least 50 or 60 Republicans. Many are sceptical the US president can do this. Mr Obama’s relations with lawmakers, including his own party, are distant and sometimes frosty. This is the moment when presidents generally call in their chips. “I have been a known undecided for days but nobody in the White House has reached out to me,” a centrist Democrat told me. “You’d like to think they have a white board with lots of names on it. But it doesn’t seem like it.”

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Hugh on

Approval of an AUMF by Congress is a ploy by Obama to avoid lame duck status. It's a risk and I have to think that he wouldn't take it unless he was sure of the outcome. A defeat in either House would confirm his lame duckedness.

Credibility as used here by our elites means the hegemon acting according to the rules, not of common sense, logic, or morality, but of empire.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Dem Party Presidential Candidate--if it's someone else.

At least that's my guess, 'cause nothing else makes much sense.

Below is an excerpt from a Politico piece--"Hillary Clinton backs President Obama on Syria," that lays out a possible case for concern regarding the timing of a military action against Syria, especially if FS Clinton were to be the Democratic Party [Presidential] nominee.

It was reported earlier this year by The New York Times that the White House had nixed a proposal by Clinton and former CIA head David Petraeus to arm some Syrian rebels. It was a proposal that the White House worried would lead to arming the wrong people, while ensnaring the U.S. into another Mideast conflict.

Clinton had talked before leaving Foggy Bottom about her “lasting regret” on the violence in Syria and the lack of clear options for the global community to help stop the crisis.

POLITICO reported earlier this year that Bill Clinton, in a conversation with Sen. John McCain at a private event in Manhattan, said he supported the senator’s position on Syria.

McCain has been among the most outspoken hawks on the topic of Syria, urging the Obama administration to do more to try to stop the ongoing humanitarian crisis for many months.

Updated: 9/5/13 12:34 AM EDT

Or, it could just be the pressure exerted by AIPAC.

Who knows?

But to my thinking, if the Democratic Party goes through with this politically suicidal action--they darn well would be smart to get it behind them!