McCrazy voted yes only after tougher Syria war resolution was crafted to his tastes

[leveymg]

Might as well call it the McCain Syria War Bill.

The vote came after Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised objections to an earlier draft. The objections forced lawmakers to renegotiate the measure; McCain ultimately won tougher language clarifying that U.S. action would be aimed in part at changing the momentum on the ground. He was among the 10 who voted for the final resolution.

The resolution specifically would permit Obama to order a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn't exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations. The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, crafted the resolution.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Oh, that's OK. It's not a real war...it's....it's...well....something else.

[Blue Owl]

2. Hit me

n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. That's not accurate

McCain wanted the prohibition on ground troops removed. That did not happen. In that sense, the resolution was not "crafted to his tastes." Rather, McCain was able to get tougher language introduced as a compromise measure. The full committee kept the prohibition on US ground troops intact, denying McCain's publicly expressed desires of this morning.

[leveymg]

10. You can snarfle, snuff, nitpick, as you like, but it's accurate - what's the difference between

McCain was able to get tougher language introduced as a compromise measure

and "crafted to his tastes"? You mean he didn't get everything he demanded. Not much difference there, unless you just want to argue semantics. Right?

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. He didn't get what he publicly stated he wanted

You're right: that's not complicated.

I'll let others determine what "crafted to his tastes" means.

To me, it means if he wanted X, and didn't get it, then it wasn't "crafted to his tastes." So, yes, I think your representation is inaccurate. I suppose you have a different understanding of "crafted to ones taste" that includes "not getting what you asked for."

The "X" - or what he asked for and did not get - in this case is relatively important, I should think: McCain wanted the resolution to include the possibility of deploying ground forces. The resolution as passed explicitly forbids that. So, no, I don't consider it a matter of semantics. It is deeply substantial whether the resolution ALLOWS or FORBIDS the use of ground troops for combat operations.

[leveymg]

13. You mean, he didn't get EVERYTHING he wanted.

My point stands. You're nit-picking.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. McCain wanted boots on the ground...the resolution forbids it...if that's a nitpick, well

I'll leave it to others to determine whether the difference between authorizing ground troops for combat operations and explicitly forbidding them is substantial enough to invalidate your description.

[leveymg]

15. He gets regime change, which is what McCain wanted to begin with. It'll take >90 days to get boots

on the ground, anyway. So, he'll end up getting that, too, after a buildup of US forces. You'll see.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. OK

I'll be on the lookout for that happening.

[ProSense]

4. Senate Panel Votes To Make Regime Change The Goal Of Syria Mission

Senate Panel Votes To Make Regime Change The Goal Of Syria Mission

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted by voice vote Wednesday two amendments by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to the resolution authorizing military action in Syria that would make it the goal of the mission to "change the moment on the battlefield in Syria."

The two McCain amendments to that effect, co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), change the non-binding Statement of Policy in the resolution to say:

It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

The amendments point to degrading the Assad regime's chemical weapons capability and the arming of Syrian opposition as means of reversing the situation on the ground in Syria, where the Assad regime is generally considered to be winning.

The language appears to address McCain's concerns about the resolution that he voiced Wednesday morning when he said he would not support the resolution as it was then written. McCain has consistently said he supports further U.S. intervention in Syria to topple Assad.

The White House has repeatedly said that its goal with military intervention is not "regime change."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-amendment-us-policy-to-change-momentum-in

This is what happens when Congress gets involved, and of course, they did it by voice vote.

[arcane1]

9. Isn't "reversing the situation on the ground" the same as "getting involved in a civil war?"

[bullwinkle428]

5. "Changing the momentum on the ground." Jesus, we are opening a

gigantic can of worms here.

[dkf]

6. That doesn't sound limited to me. What does it take to change momentum given the totality of Assad

Forces?

McCain is setting us up for the defeat of Assad, and the need to secure chemical weapons which will require boots on the ground.

Obama must think his ass is worth it. Sad.

[The Link]

7. Now Obama will be forced to carry it out against his will. Just like spying on US citizens.

[joeybee12]

11. Yeah, sucks that he ends up doing so much stuff he really doesn't want to...nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Dear God in Heaven, save us from ourselves. n/t