Just met with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA19)

[KamaAina]

not just her staff. Her. That'll look great on my quarterly report!

The main reason we were there was housing; the sequester cuts have really hammered our county's housing agency, with some Section 8 tenants seeing their rents double or triple.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23967084/rents-soar-santa-clara-countys-most-vulnerable

But she also indicated she would not be likely to approve war in Syria. Here's her joint statement with neighboring Rep. Anna Eshoo:

http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=829:reps-zoe-lofgren-a-anna-g-eshoo-release-letter-to-ambassador-susan-rice-on-the-potential-authorization-of-us-military-action-in-syria&catid=22:112th-news&Itemid=161

First, if our efforts are to "degrade" the Assad regime's chemical weapons capacity, what exactly does that mean? If the Assad regime is able to continue to deploy chemical weapons, then to what extent will the regime have capacity to use them again? We understand, and concur with the assertion, that specific targets of a military assault should not be shared. Our question has to do with what Syria and the Assad regime's capacity would be expected to look like after your proposed military attack.

Second, what would the United States do if, after a military attack, chemical weapons are used again in Syria? What would the United States do if retaliation against Israel, Turkey, or Lebanon follows the proposed attack?

Third, we understand from Secretary Kerry that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Arab League support taking military action. What nations, other than France, are willing to contribute concrete effort (men, material, and arms) to this proposed military attack as opposed to mere verbal support? Will Turkey and Saudi Arabia be actual participants in a military attack? If not, why not?...

Finally, as DNI Clapper pointed out, while we have scenarios, this would be war and events are not entirely controllable. We understand that it might be unwise to publicly report the various scenarios that detail potential adverse consequences from a military attack although we assume that this analysis has taken place. However, we feel we must learn of the potential adverse impacts of a military attack before a vote on authorization. We will be available for classified briefings on this issue when Congress reconvenes in just a few days to receive these analyses.

[BlueCheese]

1. The Saudi Arabia/Arab League thing really worries me.

If indeed Saudi Arabia and other Arab League nations support action in Syria, then I hope they would participate in any strike themselves. It would lend far more legitimacy to the action than anything else-- the U.S. bombing Syria without their help would be extremely unpopular in many places in the Middle East, I would think.

Ideally, the Arab League would be willing to act on their own, without any U.S. help. (I wonder what prevents them from doing so? Lack of weapons? Fear of domestic unpopularity?) What I really hope doesn't happen would be the opposite-- where the U.S. ends up going alone and taking the brunt of the resulting popular anger from it.

[KamaAina]

2. Lack of weapons?

We've been selling lots of shiny, expensive war toys to the Saudis for years.