You know what I'd like to hear? One congressman spilling the beans about who is pressuring everyone

[reformist2]

to vote for war! It's so obvious that the American public doesn't want it, and we all know the world doesn't want it. So why so many undecideds? Loyalty to Obama doesn't explain it, since we can all read the polls. It's really hard to believe it's "principle", since nobody on the world stage is advocating this. So it must be something else. Why can't anyone tell us??? It's very frustrating.

[warrant46]

1. It's Obvious

[rsmith6621]

2. Campaign Donors

from the industrial war machine are pressuring him.

[gopiscrap]

34. BINGO!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. NSA is listening to calls

how many skeletons are around that they do not want let lose.

[NoOneMan]

4. Obama hasn't even addressed the nation yet

He will polish this turd. The American people might wind up gobbling it down. Everyone is going to feel like they got something out of the authorization when its over.

[David__77]

29. I really don't think so.

...

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Maybe the evidence of Assad gassing his own people is undeniable and something needs to be done?

Couldn't be that, could it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Somebody did use Sarin

what is not clear yet is who? And veterans from the alphabet soups are warning the executive that the intel is getting cooked.

After the Iraq war you'd think people in power would be a lot more careful, but then again, we were not after Tonkin either.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Elizabeth Warren has seen the evidence and says Assad did it.

I think she knows her base and wouldn't be saying that if the evidence didn't convince her. And I don't believe President Obama or John Kerry would be saying what they are saying if they weren't convinced by the evidence, either.

President Obama has ended the Iraq War, is ending the Afghanistan War, and kept the Libyan conflict to a minimum. He has more than earned our trust here.

[AverageJoe90]

12. Agreed. Warren, I can trust, too. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. And we have plenty of evidence that it might not have been Assad

Sorry if I do not trust them, one iota.

Suffice it to say, a few companies will make a lot of money out of this. Buy stock on Northtrop Grumman, they are about to make boatloads.

[Nevernose]

10. But only America has what it takes to avenge their deaths?

Is that what you're saying? That only America has what it takes, and virtually every other country on Earth lacks the willpower?

[NoOneMan]

13. And only America knows how to!

Call in the World Police! Fuck yeah

[Bolo Boffin]

15. The question was, why are all the Congressfolk coming out for the war?

Not all, of course, and the House seems like it will vote against the resolution. But enough are that the OP posited someone has dirt on the ones coming out for the war.

I suggested it might be just like Obama says and that's what's convincing them. There are other countries that see an issue here, although almost all are not yet willing to go to the length of a military strike. There is no American chest-thumping on my part. It's a real problem and all of the choices are murky and not a lot of fun to contemplate.

[Nevernose]

18. Okay then

I guess we're mostly in agreement, then, and have nothing substantial to argue about. I feel like I've accomplished something!

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Why, if 'something needs to be done' is bombing the only option. You don't even say the word

you say 'something' because to say what you mean looks shitty sitting there on the screen. I think there are other options, I think that even if strikes are involved, there should be other components to the over all action. Where is the help for the refugees?
When did 'something' come to mean 'bomb into oblivion'? Since when is it right to kill people who are not Assad for crimes you ascribe to Assad? 'Someone in your country is a murderer, so we killed a bunch of others in revenge while the murderer goes free. We call this justice.'

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Due to past interaction with you on different topics, I respectfully decline a discussion here.

This is also based on how you conduct yourself in other discussions.

[davidn3600]

6. We need a state of perpetual war for the government to feel relevant and people to make money

That's something straight out of Orwell.

Iraq is done. Afghanistan is winding down. The military industrial complex needs a new front opened up.

[geomon666]

9. Transparency from the Good Ol Boys Club?

Never.

[AverageJoe90]

11. I'd be careful, as something presented as such might be used against Obama.............

....even if the congressperson in question is not necessarily aware of their role as a pawn.....

[NoOneMan]

14. Used against Obama for what? To stop the war?

Im ok with that

[AverageJoe90]

16. No, to damage him, and perhaps the Democratic Party as a whole.

And believe me, it's a LOT more possible than you may think.

[NoOneMan]

19. Were talking about dropping bombs on people

Why do I give a fuck about the reputation of some political parties?

[AverageJoe90]

22. Because this country's future is at stake.

And honestly, even though I'm not gung-ho for this whole thing, I would quite honestly rather have a Congressionally approved strike on Syria with a few minimal setbacks, but with al-Assad(and the Islamists, too) gone, and our guy win in 2016, than no strike and than the results backfiring on us(and it could, sadly), and us losing in '16, particularly if it's to someone like Rand Paul.

You REALLY need to get your priorities straight amigo. As skeptical as I may be of a strike, I will still put my country's wellbeing before anything else, and if ensuring that we don't fall victim to someone like Rand Paul may indeed involve a limited strike if Congress votes yes, or if the International Community begins to request action perhaps, then I'll accept that.

[MNBrewer]

23. The Red team vs. Blue team mentality on here is just breathtaking sometimes.

Upon whom would "no strike" backfire...the "us" in your post? US as in the U.S., or us as in the Democratic Party?

We really need to operate our foreign policy to maximize benefit to the Democratic Party??

[NoOneMan]

24. Yeah, and I dont give a fuck

Bombs tearing off limbs. And you speak of priorities?

[AverageJoe90]

25. Believe me, if a guy like Rand Paul wins, this country will be DEAD for sure.....

And the kind of carnage that might eventually follow in this country might just make the current tussle over Syria look like a children's tea party(no pun intended). So many people are worried about the next World War(which basically wouldn't happen anyway without Hitlerian levels of criminal stupidity, a solid worldwide conspiracy, or something like the incident out of "By Dawn's Early Light", or possibly a combination of two, or all three of the above).

And the LAST thing we need is to find ourselves teaming up with people whom are liable to stab us in the back the first chance they get. So even if a guy like Rand happens to say something similar to what we believe, remember; his motivations, and of those like him, are radically different compared to our own in many ways, when it comes down to it.

[frylock]

27. the dems should adopt an anti-war and anti-surveillance state policy..

to counter rand paul. I know, it sounds crazy, right?!

[NoOneMan]

33. oooh. Sounds scary. Then lets bomb the children of the third world

Boooring

[dgibby]

35. He doesn't need any help with that.

He and Kerry are doing a bang up job all by themselves.

[markpkessinger]

38. If you think the Party won't be damaged in a major way . . .

. . . if the President insists on doing this against the will of the American people, then would you kindly pass that pipe my way after you've taken your hit?

[Cleita]

26. Why does there only have to be a military solution?

There is much the international community can do to put the squeeze on the Assad regime and the warring rebels and not one bomb would need to be dropped. All the nations arming them should agree to disarmament first. It would be a start to a peaceful solution. Somebody in the international community needs to step up and become a leader in this. I hope it could be our President.

[agent46]

28. Exactly

The chemical weapon attack was a crime. Why doesn't the US lead an international task force and launch a public criminal investigation to solve the crime and identify not only the killers but also the provenance of the weapons themselves?

[Cleita]

30. Not only that the international community can freeze all of Assad's, his cabal and relatives

assets making them moneyless and unable to buy weapons or favors. There are so many other ways that are doable to make all the combatants unable to combat anymore which would force them to the negotiating table.

[Precisely]

31. Those who don't want Americans thinking about the coming winter and hard times at home

[pnwmom]

32. And the fact that not a single Congressman has done that is evidence it's not happening.

Congress is full of Rethugs who love nothing better than to obstruct Obama.

[2naSalit]

36. I have been contemplating this question

since the news came out that the presz was considering such an action.

I think the OP has a point. And I wonder which of several conditions it is. I though the prez was a straight up kind of guy and I voted for him with great enthusiasm the first time and a little less the second time (not satisfied about how he's handled a number of my concerns on the national stage).

My thoughts have ranged widely on this, here are some of them:

So is it that the oilcabal has got all our politicians by the short hairs and will manipulate them by whatever threats bring about their desire results? (Most likely) but what are these threats? A coup here? An assassination or three? Unpleasant exposure? Manipulation of intelligence to make someone seem like something other than they really are? Is it the snoopers who spy on us all? Is it the banksters and their legions who want a world domination (PNAC)?

OR

Is the pres "playing" those eluded to above to end the BS once and for all by calling their bluff? I hear the word impeachment floating regularly and perhaps this is an effort to expose treason on the part of the accusers..?

Hard to say for certain.

Don't the troops have an obligation to refuse to obey orders that are illegal? It would be good if they would act on that obligation should things get out of hand in the oval office.

So many questions. But I do know that what we are being told from every major outlet is crap but some small voices are telling the truth. It's up to us to determine what we will trust as truth.

Some make an emotive appeal by calling this a "moral imperative" but I question that we have any kind of ground to lobby such a point or claim given our history of weeny-waving bullying.

I recently read a short story by Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemmens) entitled "The Mysterious Stranger" (1916). It is a serious social commentary that applies to this issue we are discussing now... I suggest that anyone who wants to truly contemplate the morality of what has been proposed by our president read that story and consider what the stranger in the story has to say about our "moral sense". It might open some eyes on a number of situations we face as a people in current times on many levels.

Just some thoughts to offer... wish I had some answers other than to reiterate that violence solves nothing, it only perpetuates a continuum of wrongs.

[woo me with science]

37. That would be refreshing, wouldn't it? nt