More (strong) indications that a military strike is imminent

[cali]

Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other top aides to President Obama scheduled conference calls for Saturday afternoon with members of the United States Senate, where there was deep skepticism in both parties about the prospect of American involvement in another war in the Middle East, even the limited cruise missile strike under consideration.

The back-to-back calls to the Democratic and Republican conferences were arranged to fulfill Mr. Obama’s promise to consult with Congress as he contemplates military action, but there was no sign that the White House planned to seek a Congressional vote authorizing the use of force. In addition to Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel, both former senators, Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, and Susan E. Rice, the president’s national security adviser, will participate.

The calls come just hours after United Nations weapons inspectors left Syria for Lebanon early Saturday morning, in effect clearing the way for a strike. American officials had made clear they would hold off using force until the inspectors departed safely but had no intention of waiting until they had delivered a formal report on the use of chemical weapons, citing their own intelligence conclusions that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, which killed more than 1,400 people in the eastern suburbs of the capital, Damascus.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

[Lurks Often]

1. If the President goes to Congress to get authorization to use force in Syria

I strongly believe Congress will NOT grant him authorization. I think too many in BOTH parties do not think we should get involved in a civil war where both sides hate the United States and both sides either have or are willing to commit atrocities.*



*I refer to the likelihood that if the rebels actually win, they will begin to persecute the non Muslim minorities in Syria.

[cali]

2. that's a near certainty

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syria-behind-the-lines/does-syria-face-a-genocidal-future/

the president has no attention of getting authorization. Personally, I believe that military strikes will start this weekend in order to have them over with by the G-20. The President does not want this hanging out there.

[RobertEarl]

4. Nah

No attack soon, if ever.

The people are against it, They are tired of war. UK for the first time since @1782, declined to make war. Obama knows if he runs it by the Congress he'll be told no.

Instead, president Carter's plan of a peace summit is in our future.

[FarCenter]

3. 2 am local time Monday morning.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130831-arab-ministers-meet-sunday-syria

Arab ministers to meet Sunday on Syria

Arab foreign ministers will meet in Cairo Sunday to discuss Syria, Arab League deputy chief Ahmed Ben Helli said Saturday, as the United States appeared to be readying a strike on the country.

The meeting had been scheduled for Tuesday, but was advanced "in light of rapid developments in the Syria situation and based on the request of several Arab states," Ben Helli told reporters.

[jsr]

5. Probably tonight

[leveymg]

6. I particularly don't like the fact that the majority opinion of the US people is being disregarded.

Obama is proving to be among the least democratic of all Democratic Presidents, and the least constitutional of constitutional law professors. He seems to have become fully an Interventionist under the sway of the hawkish wing of the permanent Washington national security apparatus. On domestic security issues, he's even more aggressive at prosecuting whistleblowers than his predecessor, and is a full-fledged secrecy and surveillance enthusiast. In these important areas, he's very different from candidate Obama, circa 2007 when he captured the imagination of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

He's a lot like Lyndon Johnson, another basically good liberal President who went overboard in national security. When he finally realized the folly of his terrible miscalculation in Vietnam, LBJ at least had the decency to effectively resign (he declined to run for a second full term in '68).

[scarletwoman]

7. The GOP may be about to get very lucky!

All these years they've been desperately casting about, looking for some way to bring impeachment proceedings against Obama. And now Obama appears poised to hand them a raison d'etre on a platter - an act of military agression without a formal approval from Congress.

Yes, I know, the "War Powers Act" and all that. But will the GOP controlled House care? There simply is no demonstrable U.S. national security interest at stake in Syria - none that is above board, anyway. Obama and SoS Kerry are spinning their justifications from the very thinnest of filaments. It's absolutely disgusting.