BREAKING 3:25 P.M. E.T.—SENATE PANEL APPROVES SYRIA USE OF FORCE RESOLUTION

[flpoljunkie]

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Talkingpointsmemo Livewire

BREAKING 3:25 P.M. E.T.—SENATE PANEL APPROVES SYRIA USE OF FORCE RESOLUTION

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/senate-panel-approves-syria-use-of-force-resolution

---

The vote was 10 ayes, 7 nays and 1 present (Senator Markey, D-MA. Senators McCain, Flake and Corker voted aye. Dem senators Murphy and Udall voted no.

[Blue Owl]

1. Wait -- let's make sure McGramps has finished his poker game first

n/t

[Harmony Blue]

10. Haha

funny but so true.

[wordpix]

66. he's a bit bored with the discussion but it's his f-ing JOB to know the ins and outs

and not of poker online.

[frazzled]

2. Markey voted "present"

according to the TPM report, which says also that Udall voted no with the Republicans, while the rest of the Democrats (minus Udall and Markey) voted aye. Don't know which version of votes is correct yet.

[totodeinhere]

3. Murphy also voted no. n/t

[Robbins]

4. Murphy

Well he's no Lieberman that's for sure.good for him.

[wordpix]

64. do not even put my smart senator in the same category as Lieberman

Murphy is a cut WAY above

[Robbins]

6. Markey

Seems like he didn't want to vote yes but felt he couldn't go against Obama and Kerry by voting no.

[hughee99]

88. He's done this before and it's embarrassing.

He could have voted EITHER way and at least made a case for it. Instead he punted. If someone runs against him in the next primary, they won't have to do much to get my vote.

[Sand Wind]

5. Great, reason at work in the US Senate !

[Robbins]

7. Well

There are adults who oppose getting involved In Syria.

If Obama wants to prove me wrong he will launch missiles at syria and then stop any Involvement.

[Sand Wind]

11. Will see...nt

[cstanleytech]

41. What? You really think they would authorize another massive invasion of a country?

I dont believe they would and besides that I really dont believe Obama is stupid enough to repeat what Bush did with Iraq.

[eissa]

8. Sickened and disgusted. n/t

[Daniel537]

12. Are you as sickened and disgusted by the use of chemical weapons against Syrians? n/t

[eissa]

13. Are you sickened and disgusted by the rebels/terrorists

Sawing off the heads of minorities, murdering pro-regime populations and eating their organs?

This isn't related to anything humanitarian whatsoever. If we were concerned with that, we would have been in the Congo long ago. This is the usual geopolitics at work, and we are being played once again. Enjoy your new war. Can't ever have enough of them.

[Robb]

21. We put troops in Congo in early 2012.

[former9thward]

71. Yes we did and then what happened?

U.S.-trained Congolese troops committed rapes and other atrocities, U.N. says

A Congolese army battalion that received its formative training from the U.S. military went on to commit mass rapes and other atrocities last year, a U.N. investigation has found.

Members of the 391st Commando Battalion, a unit created in 2010 with extensive support from the U.S. government, joined with other Congolese soldiers to rape 97 women and 33 girls as they fled a rebel advance in eastern Congo in November, according to the United Nations.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-13/world/39226624_1_m23-rights-abuses-minova

[Robb]

78. Suggesting US training brought rape as a war weapon to African conflict

...is rather like suggesting Marco Polo brought pajamas to India.

[former9thward]

79. Suggesting we bring no good to nations that don't want us.

We just trained those troops to do their mayhem more efficiently.

[arewenotdemo]

24. Obama's not

not the first word in condemnation of any rebel atrocities.

That tells me all I need to know about this morality play.

[wisteria]

72. Where are you getting your information?

Or are you just repeating Assad lies?

[totodeinhere]

14. We all are but attacking Syria militarily could very well make things worse and result in more

loss of innocent life in the long run. The only way to deal with this is on the international level, not unilaterally. Who appointed us to be the world's policeman?

[ellenrr]

76. Should go to the Int'l court of justice, unfortunately..

the US did not sign on the to ICJ, and has undermined it at every turn.

stephen Zunes,
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18579-seven-arguments-against-going-to-war-with-syria

shows very well that military intervention will strengthen Assad, and historically, always leads to more death and suffering.

[totodeinhere]

80. I had thought that president Obama would embrace that ICJ and the ICC once he took office,

but he hasn't. It is one of my major disappointments about him.

[ellenrr]

82. I've never been disappointed in Obama. I never expected anything different.

Before he was elected people (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report- among a few others), people who did not drink the coolade, pointed out that Obama is a right-centrist candidate/president, representing Wall Street, imperialist.

Events turned out to prove them correct.

These are the only kind of people put up by the electoral system, that we are given the "choice" to vote for.
Kinda like the "choice" of the Mubarak candidate or the Brotherhood candidate in Egypt.

[David__77]

20. Are you sickened by rape?

That question is just about as valid.

[AnnetteJacobs]

39. I'm sickened by dissected frogs floating in jars of formaldehyde.

[Ash_F]

40. Hey, remember the last time the US completely took the side of an obviously racist faction...

totally without any conditions as to their behavior?

I do.

[warrant46]

48. We used to call that changing the subject

[Nanjing to Seoul]

49. More sickened and disgusted that we will fight another country's civil war again

That always turns out great for us, doesn't it?

[Bradical79]

89. Your implication is sick and disgusting

The implication that someone is for chemical weapon use because they are against more military action is reprehensible and irrational. Given our history of military actions and the results, along with the makeup of the various rebel factions in Syria, being against involvement seems like the more defensible and easily argued position. The burden should be on supporters to show why force is necessary and why this military campaign will turn out differently for the people of Syria than it did for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any other nation we've taken action against over the past 50 years or so.

[David Krout]

9. So what's the next step?

Does this go to full Senate vote and then House? I don't understand Congress procedures very well.

[Jon Ace]

15. Yep. (nt)

[jessie04]

16. AND the list gets longer ..

Pres.Obama
VP JOE BIDEN
SOS KERRY
MIN LEADER NANCY PELOSI
( FUTURE PRES.) HILARY CLINTON
CONG.DEBBIE-WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
HOWARD DEAN
SEN. CARDEN
SEN MENENDEZ ( NJ)
SEN COONS

[jessie04]

53. And longer...

Pres.Obama
VP JOE BIDEN
SOS KERRY
MIN LEADER NANCY PELOSI
( FUTURE PRES.) HILARY CLINTON
CONG.DEBBIE-WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
HOWARD DEAN
SEN. CARDEN
SEN MENENDEZ ( NJ)
SEN COONS
SEN. BOXER
SEN DICK DURBIN
SEN Jeanne Shaheen
SEN Tim Kaine

[DCBob]

17. I have a feeling the Republicans are going to find a way to block the final vote somehow..

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)

to force Obama's hand. They will say if he really believes this is the right thing to do then he will do it regardless of the vote. They can make the argument that they wanted more so that's why they didn't vote for it... not that they were against any attack at all. It might be a good political strategy for them.. but I'm sure the WH is anticipating all possibilities.

[David__77]

22. Let's hope so!

It needs to be blocked at all costs.

[DCBob]

43. I wouldnt root for the Rethugs..

if they actually get their way we will be seeing shock and awe and eventually occupying Syria.

[David__77]

45. I don't think that's true of most of them.

Mind you, if it was President Romney, the vote would have been very different. But the Democrats would have opposed it too - certainly the likes of Boxer and Pelosi. This is sad indeed.

[pampango]

23. Plus there's the lure of impeachment, if congress says No and Obama does it anyway.

That has to excite the republican base that has wanted to impeach Obama for a long time. All the more reason for a No vote.

[David__77]

27. Actually this is a good point, and reason enough why the GOP would be foolish to allow this through.

Block it in the house, let Obama do this on his own, and when things go awry, which they will, they can dominate politically. Of course, my HOPE is that Obama will take the slap across the wrist of a no vote, and simmer down the war talk.

[davidpdx]

69. I've said that I don't think the resolution will pass one of the two chambers

Most likely the House.

[Orrex]

18. Whew! That's a relief!

I was afraid we might do something crazy and not vote for war.

[toby jo]

19. And more stunning news: Assad is now quaking in his boots, and says they shall submit

to the great superpower overseas cuz he would really be bummed to see more people hurt. Nothing, he assures us, will provoke a retaliatory response. He says 'I get how out of control and devolutionary violence is, and just don't want to add to it.'

What a calm and cool dude .

Does anyone know if we manufactured and/or sold these chemical weapons to him like we did to Iraq?

[KamaAina]

25. Doubtful

though the British were caught red-handed selling Syria chemicals that could be used to make CW months after the civil war started.

[David__77]

26. THANK YOU to the seven senators saying NO!

THANK YOU to the 7 senators who stood by their country and against a war to promote terrorism:

Udall D
Murphy D
Risch R
Rubio R
Johnson R
Barraso R
Paul R

We can hope there there are more patriots in the house that will not abide by this.

This will be the Democrats' war. Please note that most Democrats said "YES" to war, and most Republicans said "NO." Our hope lies in the house, and maybe, just maybe convincing those alleged progressives to get off the regime change express.

[arewenotdemo]

28. I'm in complete agreement, David_77.

Thank you, Senators.

[David__77]

30. This raises my hopes for a filibuster.

An alliance of anti-war progressives, conservative nationalists, and pro-Christian forces on the right can be rallied to win 41 votes, then this thing can be stopped dead in its tracks! At all costs, it must be defeated!

[jessie04]

32. Uhhhh...you're "THANKING"....Marco Rubio ? Rand Paul ??

is this a joke ???

[David__77]

33. Damn straight! They did the right thing in this case.

They opposed a war of choice, a war for ego.

[jessie04]

34. Hey....do what you want.

I never thought I would see that here.

btw, did it ever occur to your" new " friends voted that way to screw the president????

[David__77]

35. I never thought I'd see people lining up with McCain, Lieberman, and Graham to start another war.

Things are surprising. Strange bedfellows. I'm proud, very proud of Sen. Murphy and Sen. Udall - presidential material, perhaps.

[jessie04]

36. Wrong !!

They are lining up with dems and I will be damned if I would "THANK" a puke.

[David__77]

37. It is wrong to line up for a war of choice and ego.

Especially when it will undermine our national security. I'm willing to say "thank you" to those who put the interest of the nation first for once. Someone has to stand up to terrorism and war mania.

[jessie04]

46. Spin it anyway you want. Feel free to thank as many pukes as you want.

Your "new" friends are not your friends.

I'm in shock.

[David__77]

47. They're not "friends." They're tactical allies.

That is all.

[jessie04]

50. In that case....Don't forget to THANK your other "ally", TED CRUZ !!

or as you call him..."another PATRIOT in the house".

This is amazing.

[David__77]

58. When the vote happens, I'll thank whoever votes no.

Just as I thanked Ron Paul for opposing Bush's criminal war against Iraq.

[arewenotdemo]

73. Party loyalty blinds.

They're following Obama right off the fucking cliff.

He's tearing the "Democratic wing" of the Party right off, and Democratic leaders can't even see it!

[christx30]

60. You know what they say:

A stopped clock is right twice a day. A radioactive squirrel can find the cheese in the dark.
Going to war against Syria is the wrong thing to do. I voted for Obama. But he is totally wrong in this case. I don't care who agrees with me. If its pukes, then it's pukes. Boehner is backing Obama in this mistake. Does that automatically mean Obama is right or wrong.
This isn't about party lines. It's about what is best for the country. Attacking Syria is totally wrong.

[Volaris]

63. Right...

dont kid yourself, this wasnt about being against a war it was about being against OBAMA. If R-Money had won the last election, bet your ass there would be a full infantry division in Damascus already.

Yeah, I'll take what I can get, (and I guess I'll give credit where credit is due) but I have no illusions about why it was done. It was done to re-enforce the idea that they are in complete lockstep with the idiot base that wouldn't let this President give them a 100$bill if it were drawn off of his own account.

Me personally, I have more respect for those here (and those Democrats in our government) who disagree with me about this, as I understand that they have a lot more at stake by voting YES (and therefore REALLY pissing off thier liberal base); it tells me that they are doing what they at least think is right, regardless of the political consequences to them personally (no such behavior currently exists in the elected body of the GOP, BTW).

I have no such illusions regarding the GOP. What will be funny to watch, though, is if this ends up being a no-vote across the board, and Obama honors that, they will do their damndest to rip him apart in the next set of Primaries, for "not having the courage of his convictions" or some such nonsense. We, EVERY ONE OF US, need to remember how they voted on this, and hold them to their argument.

If they say, "well, no wanted another Iraq." ask them Why the fuck not, what the hell was so wrong with what happened THERE?

I don't want a shooting war with Syria. But if the GOP loons want to make this about un-necessary wars, I PROMISE you I will do everything in my argumentative power to make them OWN (finally) that little fuckwad Jr. I will MAKE them throw him under the bus, as a matter of their own PERSONAL political survival.

ON EDIT: Also, I WILL NOT support military action in Syria JUST BECAUSE President Obama is the candidate I voted for (twice). That kind of idiocy is the domain of the GOP, and it's what got us into Iraq in the FIRST PLACE. I understand Party Loyalty, but that goes both ways..the party I'm loyal to, must ALSO be loyal to ME, at least by some measure some of the time.

[jessie04]

74. Interesting post.

I understand what you are saying.

But I also noticed you didn't THANK those neanderthals Rubio, Paul and Cruz and play 'kissy-kissy' with them by calling them .....<<<puke>> ....patriots............. Because you would never do that horrible thing.

virtual love making with pukes by selling your soul is not too cool.

[Volaris]

77. Yeah, well, I ALSO didn't thank all the people who DIDN'T rob a bank vault yesterday...

they don't get Good Citizen points for doing the SAFE, SMART or MORALLY EXPECTED thing.

[beerandjesus]

81. I'm thanking them too...

...and personally, I'm more shocked to be thanking John Barrasso than I am to be thanking Rand Paul.

[Carolina]

62. K&R Agree completely

This will be the Democrats war and it's a loser in so many ways... for this nation, Syria and the ME.

I have no hope for 2014 or 2016 because we the people don't seem to matter. Obomber and Kerry are worse than the neocons because they mouth democratic principles but vote and act otherwise. Their lies are all the more egregious because they sound like the neocon play book from 2002-2003.

At least with Shrub we knew what we were getting... small comfort

[Plucketeer]

29. As a proud member of the 91%

How's come I feel I'm in a minority? OH! That's right. It's cause many of these supposed "representatives" truly DO NOT represent US. Crazy me!

[DeSwiss]

31. Proving beyond a doubt that we are ruled by miscreants, morons and idiots. K&R - n/t

[Marrah_G]

38. Not off to a great start Markey

GRRR

[Tx4obama]

68. Senator Markey, D-MA voted 'PRESENT' - he said he wants more info before deciding.

So, we will not know how he will vote until the 'full senate' votes on the resolution.

[wordpix]

42. Markey voted yes? And I gave him $$ to win..

[PoliticAverse]

52. No Markey voted 'Present'... See the following article...

for some discussion/commentary on his vote...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/09/04/ed-markey-annoys-literally-everyone-by-voting-present-on-syrian-resolution/

[wordpix]

44. Here's what my Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) had to say about his NO

This is what a thoughtful senator who did his homework and doesn't play games in a hearing has to say. I am proud to call Chris my senator.

From my inbox:

Earlier today, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I voted against authorizing the use of military force in Syria.

The resolution passed 10 to 7, and now moves on to deliberation and a final vote before the full U.S. Senate.

As promised, I wanted to send you a message once I made up my mind, along with information about how I came to this difficult conclusion.

First of all, the president's decision to come to Congress was the right one, and I appreciate the great thought and consideration that the Administration has given to our nation's response to the crisis in Syria.

Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against the people of Syria is a human rights atrocity and a blatant violation of international law. It's impossible to see the horrific images of death and suffering in Syria and not feel compelled to act in some way. But there is not always an American solution to every international crisis. For me, today's vote was a close call, but in the end, I voted no because I believe that downside risks of military action, both for U.S. interests and the Syrian people, outweigh the potential benefits.

In the short-term, there is little chance that targeted air strikes will destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, and may simply prompt another deadly reaction from Assad as well as the countries that finance his murderous regime. In the long-term, I worry that today's authorization, which combines authorization for a military strike with support for the lethal arming of the opposition, will involve us in the Syrian conflict in a way that will be difficult to untangle.

Our focus should be on increasing humanitarian aid to the millions of innocent Syrians suffering at the hands of Assad, as well as on concerted diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on the regime.

Thanks for being a part of this conversation.

Chris Murphy

[Coyotl]

51. Time for a filibuster!

I hate to say it, but suddenly I support filibusters in the US Senate.

[PoliticAverse]

54. Markey (D-MA) didn't vote 'aye' he voted 'present'...

For some background/discussion on his vote see the following article...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/09/04/ed-markey-annoys-literally-everyone-by-voting-present-on-syrian-resolution/

[Brigid]

55. Aw shit.

[MotherPetrie]

56. I have already informed my asshole senator on the panel that he's gotten his last vote from me

[blkmusclmachine]

57. So, what are the next 3 countries we bomb after Syria?!! I'm sure there's an official list.

You all don't really want to retire, now, do you?!?!

Meow.

[Hydra]

59. Iran is definitely next

Open question what happens after that...and if we'll all survive it.

[andym]

61. A lot of what's happening now in Syria is for Iran's "benefit"

No doubt that the USA seeks to send a message to Iran to cease and desist with their "secret" nuclear development.

[wordpix]

65. it's over oil, Syria has largest "proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean"

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-gas-little-known-facts-syrias-energy-resources-russias-help-1402405

Russia is in there helping Assad develop oil and gas, too. THAT is the alliance Russia has with Assad.

[andym]

70. But the Eastern Mediterranean has little oil: 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil is not very much

To put it in perspective, Syria is not even in the top 15. http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-countries-with-the-highest-oil-reserves/20120517.htm

Saudi Arabia has 265 billion barrels of reserve. Syria has only 1% of Saudi Arabia.
Iraq has 115 billion barrels. Syria as only 2% as much as Iraq.
Russia has 77 billion barrels, and we have 31 billion barrels (we have 10X more than Syria!)

The Eastern Mediterranean hardly has any oil.

Now there is the issue of the oil pipeline that may run from Iraq through Syria. Iraq does have a LOT of oil.

[Tx4obama]

67. Please fix your commentary in the OP. Senator Markey, D-MA voted 'present'

[ellenrr]

75. hate to say.. i told you so.. but I did

[Pterodactyl]

83. Good for Murphy and Udall!

[lovuian]

84. Saudis will be happy

and seem to be calling the shots here

this makes no sense when America was on the brink of default

[msanthrope]

85. It helps to read the date/time of the OP. nt

[treestar]

86. lol can you believe this one?

[msanthrope]

87. DKF has left a hole. nt