After classified briefing, lawmakers skeptical on Syria attack - WaPo

[blogslut]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/01/after-meeting-with-obama-lawmakers-skeptical-on-syria-attack/

The Obama administration’s request for U.S. military intervention in Syria would not pass the Congress as written because it is too broad, a senior senator said Sunday after a classified briefing on the situation.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate, told reporters after the meeting that the resolution seeking military force is “too open ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

Leahy’s comments echoed the views of dozens of lawmakers who left the briefing and said they want to see the resolution more closely resemble President Obama’s own pledge that any strike be limited in scope.

“The president’s request is open-ended,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution. But I’m not too sure that the people who answered that are the people that have that decision to make...”

more at the link

[NYC_SKP]

1. I think it's brilliant that Obama has taken this approach.

He sticks to the constitution and puts the onus where it belongs, on Congress.

The same that would call him soft on terrorism hate the idea of giving him his way, so they're damned if they do and damned if they don't support him.

Brilliant.

[countmyvote4real]

16. Agree.

Hope they throw him a lifeline and vote it down. We are all damned if they don't and grant this request.

[David Krout]

2. When I read the title, I thought it meant these Senators would not approve an attack on Syria

But then I read the body, and I realized that they a limited attack on Syria, the exact same thing that we all here have read in the news that Obama wants.

"Leahy’s comments echoed the views of dozens of lawmakers who left the briefing and said they want to see the resolution more closely resemble President Obama’s own pledge that any strike be limited in scope."

They are playing games. They are playing the "total war vs. limited war" game, instead of playing the "no war vs. any war" game.

[truedelphi]

8. And in this particular situation, with Russia having already sent its

Naval destroyers to this region, one mistake on anybody's part and it could be fulls team ahead to a far greater war than our media is letting us contemplate.

I watched a vid of two USA Today Talking Heads speaking on the issue, and one of them is relating how "Russia wouldn't be a problem for us." REALLY?!!!!

Should they use the anti ship missiles they have on their carriers, and hit one of our ships, and then you have two nuclear powers needing to face off one anther. Currently, Russia has 1,800 nuke warheads in place and ready to go, and another 2,500 that can be prepped and ready to go within 96 hours..

All so the PNAC crowd, of whom Obama is now apparently an unwitting but willing part of, can have their Big Huge War.

[lark]

11. Why do you think he's unwitting but willing?

President Obama is very intelligent, so I'd never buy unwitting. Willing, he obviously is, since he's got no problem going up against Russia and China alone. Is he listening to the right people, hell NO. He does, however, choose who he listens to, and it isn't Joe Biden, or the UN inspectors, it's the hawks.

I am glad he's bringing this before Congress, but don't trust them to do the right thing either. They too are the 1%ers or the paid lackeys of them, so are ever interested in creating new opportunities for profit for the MIC. Cruise missiles are quite expensive after all, and if Russia retaliates, what a huge explosion of profit for the Bushes, Koch's, Cheney's etc.

[truedelphi]

17. I try and give him the benefit of the doubt.

But in my heart, I cannot say I disagree with you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. I agree that it is too open-ended

The AUMF on Syria as currently drafted authorizes the same sort of open-ended engagement that the Iraq AUMF did. Congress should modify it to specify action type and - more importantly - specify the need for a new AUMF should a different sort of action (i.e., boots onn the ground) be deemed necessary. Congress must severely limit the AUMF, if they are to pass it at all.

[morningfog]

4. It is horribly written, as of now. I agree far too open ended. But, I think general terms are all

that the House and Senate could work to pass. Can you see them reaching any agreements on the scope and parameters on Obama's use of force? I can't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Well, those who accuse Obama of starting negotiations in the middle can't use it for evidence

I don't know about "horribly written," but it's certainly a non-limited and open-ended proposal that needs to be seriously curtailed. I'd like to see the Congress get a series of limits for it together. I think the Senate can do that, and will. That said, I'd still like to see a NO vote here, and let the UN get its shit together.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Notice that those briefed were not skeptical about 1) whether there was a chemical weapons attack

and 2) who done it:

Lawmakers from both parties said there was widespread agreement with the evidence that Bashar Assad’s regime carried out the chemical attacks — but still doubt about whether U.S. attacks would achieve a meaningful result.

“The evidence at this point is overwhelming,” Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said.

The question, as many of us here have, is whether any strike would produce any meaningful results. Nobody is going on record after the briefing to say that the case that Assad's forces launched a chemical weapons attack that killed near 1500 people is a weak case. Just sayin'.

[David Krout]

10. You better hope that most House members 1-) are not skeptical of the source of the attack

and 2-) Believe that the Constitution says that chemical attacks (even coming from a foreign President) justifies war if not used against Americans.

[lark]

12. They are responding to the government briefing.

Our government has been known to twist allegations into facts, they lied to us before, who's to say they aren't lying now by leaving out any info that might shows that the rebels also used sarin. Sorry, NSA, CIA cant be trusted. I'd trust the UN a lot more, they're a lot more neutral than our government spooks.

[dkf]

7. Wow congress actually trying to match the President's words with reality. Amazing!

I think they realize we are finally beginning to pay attention.

And it looks like Obama may have been trying to pull a fast one on us. I shake my head.

[GeorgeGist]

9. I think they should cut the bullshit ...

and approve targeting an Assad; his brother would do as a "shot across the bow".

[msanthrope]

13. They've conceded there will be an attack. How big is the question.

AI PAC will let most of them know.

[DreamSmoker]

14. Same story, different Foot...

You know this is exactly the same as when Donald Rumsfeld wanted to go to War..
He came up with a bogus plan that was supposed to last only weeks for the U.S. in Iraq..

[burnsei sensei]

15. Again, screw the neoconservative agenda.

“The president’s request is open-ended,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Do not allow this problem to be rectified.
Instead, let it be the kiss of death for this and every other piece of legislation like it, where there is manifest foolishness.
I'd suggest that Congress stop rewarding bad behavior.
The "good days" of neoconservative authority and casual military aggression are over.
Realism must mean realism in terms of cost from now on.