Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Do you think we should wait till Congress takes its sweet ole time to decide whether to strike against Syria?

Posted by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM
  • 27 Replies

America May Strike Syria for Suffocating Those Kids With Sarin Gas ... But There's No Rush

by Cynthia Dermody

 syria war

Tensions are really escalating in Syria, and yesterday President Obama dropped a bombshell news that cranks the urgency to deal with the situation over there up a few notches. Remember that attack last week that killed hundreds of Syrian children? It turns out the chemical that was used was sarin gas. Sarin is an odorless liquid nerve agent. It stops your muscles from working properly, namely your lungs, so that you suffocate to death. Just think of all those beautiful children, and over a thousand adults, suffocating to death. I'm sure Obama has, and is as horrified as the rest of us are, which is why yesterday he issued this statement:

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare.

Exactly -- what kind of message does it send? That the rest of the world is a bunch of wimps for letting them get away with it, that's what. Why can't England take a stand first? Or any one of those other Arab countries around there? Of course, as always, it's falling to America to be the one to act first, like it always does. That way it's much more convenient for other high-and-mighty countries to criticize and blame us when something goes wrong. Because nothing in war ever goes right.

Obama's inclination to take action is right -- but his decision to let Congress decide if we do or don't is wrong. He's the president, if he feels we need to make a short-term strike, he should have the backbone to make that call and not pass the buck. Waiting till Sept. 9, when all Congresspeople return from the last of the their summer vacations at the beach with their families, is an eternity for all the Syrian people whose lives are at stake.

The extra time is exactly what Obama wants -- time to find allies and support around the world, because at this time, he's pretty much got nada. No one wants to get involved in another war, especially so soon after the mess of the last one. Even many Republicans and Democrats are divided. This could be one of the most defining points of Obama's career -- it could make or break his legacy -- and he an his administration well know that. So they are treading very carefully here.

The next couple of weeks are going to be very interesting for this president and for international relations around the world. I just hope as they do all their negotiating, political positioning and strategizing, they keep that video of all those children front of mind.

Do you think we should wait till Congress takes its sweet ole time to decide whether to strike against Syria?

by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
jcrew6
by Jenney on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM
1 mom liked this

Sweet ole time?  Really? 

Are you aware that quite a few in Congress came to DC to read over some of the classified documents? And many are skeptical?

Sweet ole time? Even if you copied and pasted the title....   Get a clue.  

 

By Ed O'Keefe and Paul Kane, Updated: 

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,” said 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.”

The briefing, held in the expansive Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, crossed the two-hour mark shortly after 4 p.m. Some lawmakers exited the meeting in a rush to get to airports for flights home, but dozens remained inside the hall.

A quartet of administration officials, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, presented evidence of the alleged chemical attack and then turned over the meeting to questions, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

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

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

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led the push to force a congressional vote on military intervention, said “80 percent” of the skeptics in the room doubted that a limited strike would achieve any clear result and might instead lead to bad consequences. “There is more a question of,” he said, “is this the right approach?”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking House Republican, said lawmakers in the meeting expressed concern about “how limited and how focused any kind of a potential military action would be. I think they’re seeking clarification about what exactly the president is proposing. There are concerns about the resolution being too broad.”

“Members are becoming more informed and they’re asking questions and that’s all part of the decision,” she said.

As head of the House GOP Conference, McMorris Rodgers potentially holds sway over several potential Republican votes. But she said she remains undecided.

“It’s a difficult decision,” she said. “I have a lot of concerns. I’m skeptical, but I’m going to listen and continue to learn.”

Lawmakers who exited the briefing early also expressed skepticism about the presentation, saying they expect to hear more from the Obama administration in the coming days.

“There’s more reading to do and that will happen over the course of the week,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who said he was still undecided on how he would vote.

So is Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who said that, “I’m just not sure the case has been clearly made.”

Quigley, DesJarlais and others canceled weekend plans and made quick arrangements for flights to Washington, but also planned to race home Sunday night.

“It’s a pretty important issue, so I don’t mind” coming back, DesJarlais said.

Many said they were eager to come back to Washington to review classified documents made available to them and also attend the in-person briefing.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said he would wait to review reports by United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria before making a decision. But he’s also worried that Obama might still strike Syria even if Congress rejects a use of force resolution.

“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/01/after-meeting-with-obama-lawmakers-skeptical-on-syria-attack/?print=1

4kidz916
by Gold Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM
4 moms liked this

I don't think they are taking their time.  I think they are weighing the pros and cons of said war.  No need to rush into something that will get us in a deeper mess than we're already in, especially since there is no immediate threat to our country.  It's a shame what Syria is doing to their people and it breaks my heart to see the news footage of it but we've got problems of our own to solve. 

Cafe Steph
by Head Admin on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM
2 moms liked this

This is Cynthia Dermody's opinion, not mine. I just shared like anyone else does here, except my opinion isn't included.

I'm glad they're taking time to consider what to do this time. There are times where a quick, decisive action is necessary, but I don't think this is one of them. That said, they shouldn't take forever to decide, either.


Quoting jcrew6:

Sweet ole time?  Really? 

Are you aware that quite a few in Congress came to DC to read over some of the classified documents? And many are skeptical?

Sweet ole time? Even if you copied and pasted the title....   Get a clue.  

 

By Ed O'Keefe and Paul Kane, Updated: 

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,” said 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.”

The briefing, held in the expansive Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, crossed the two-hour mark shortly after 4 p.m. Some lawmakers exited the meeting in a rush to get to airports for flights home, but dozens remained inside the hall.

A quartet of administration officials, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, presented evidence of the alleged chemical attack and then turned over the meeting to questions, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

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

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

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led the push to force a congressional vote on military intervention, said “80 percent” of the skeptics in the room doubted that a limited strike would achieve any clear result and might instead lead to bad consequences. “There is more a question of,” he said, “is this the right approach?”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking House Republican, said lawmakers in the meeting expressed concern about “how limited and how focused any kind of a potential military action would be. I think they’re seeking clarification about what exactly the president is proposing. There are concerns about the resolution being too broad.”

“Members are becoming more informed and they’re asking questions and that’s all part of the decision,” she said.

As head of the House GOP Conference, McMorris Rodgers potentially holds sway over several potential Republican votes. But she said she remains undecided.

“It’s a difficult decision,” she said. “I have a lot of concerns. I’m skeptical, but I’m going to listen and continue to learn.”

Lawmakers who exited the briefing early also expressed skepticism about the presentation, saying they expect to hear more from the Obama administration in the coming days.

“There’s more reading to do and that will happen over the course of the week,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who said he was still undecided on how he would vote.

So is Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who said that, “I’m just not sure the case has been clearly made.”

Quigley, DesJarlais and others canceled weekend plans and made quick arrangements for flights to Washington, but also planned to race home Sunday night.

“It’s a pretty important issue, so I don’t mind” coming back, DesJarlais said.

Many said they were eager to come back to Washington to review classified documents made available to them and also attend the in-person briefing.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said he would wait to review reports by United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria before making a decision. But he’s also worried that Obama might still strike Syria even if Congress rejects a use of force resolution.

“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/01/after-meeting-with-obama-lawmakers-skeptical-on-syria-attack/?print=1



kcangel63
by Amanda on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:43 AM
I think this writer needs to remember that the US is just as guilty of using chemical weapons to kill innocent men, women, and children. Maybe we deserve to be attacked and put under a new regime.
jcrew6
by Jenney on Sep. 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM
3 moms liked this

I understand this, which is why I said if the title was copied and pasted...It's partial fact opinions such as hers that some grasp onto as actual news and truth that fuel the death of common sense in America.  I think those of us that have an ounce of a clue should step up our discussion and not allow such opinionated crap be part of a logical, rational discussion.  Let's discuss actual facts and not validate opinionated spew. 

Quoting Cafe Steph:

This is Cynthia Dermody's opinion, not mine. I just shared like anyone else does here, except my opinion isn't included.

I'm glad they're taking time to consider what to do this time. There are times where a quick, decisive action is necessary, but I don't think this is one of them. That said, they shouldn't take forever to decide, either.


Quoting jcrew6:

Sweet ole time?  Really? 

Are you aware that quite a few in Congress came to DC to read over some of the classified documents? And many are skeptical?

Sweet ole time? Even if you copied and pasted the title....   Get a clue.  

 

By Ed O'Keefe and Paul Kane, Updated: 

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,” said 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.”

The briefing, held in the expansive Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, crossed the two-hour mark shortly after 4 p.m. Some lawmakers exited the meeting in a rush to get to airports for flights home, but dozens remained inside the hall.

A quartet of administration officials, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, presented evidence of the alleged chemical attack and then turned over the meeting to questions, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

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

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

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led the push to force a congressional vote on military intervention, said “80 percent” of the skeptics in the room doubted that a limited strike would achieve any clear result and might instead lead to bad consequences. “There is more a question of,” he said, “is this the right approach?”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking House Republican, said lawmakers in the meeting expressed concern about “how limited and how focused any kind of a potential military action would be. I think they’re seeking clarification about what exactly the president is proposing. There are concerns about the resolution being too broad.”

“Members are becoming more informed and they’re asking questions and that’s all part of the decision,” she said.

As head of the House GOP Conference, McMorris Rodgers potentially holds sway over several potential Republican votes. But she said she remains undecided.

“It’s a difficult decision,” she said. “I have a lot of concerns. I’m skeptical, but I’m going to listen and continue to learn.”

Lawmakers who exited the briefing early also expressed skepticism about the presentation, saying they expect to hear more from the Obama administration in the coming days.

“There’s more reading to do and that will happen over the course of the week,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who said he was still undecided on how he would vote.

So is Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who said that, “I’m just not sure the case has been clearly made.”

Quigley, DesJarlais and others canceled weekend plans and made quick arrangements for flights to Washington, but also planned to race home Sunday night.

“It’s a pretty important issue, so I don’t mind” coming back, DesJarlais said.

Many said they were eager to come back to Washington to review classified documents made available to them and also attend the in-person briefing.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said he would wait to review reports by United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria before making a decision. But he’s also worried that Obama might still strike Syria even if Congress rejects a use of force resolution.

“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/01/after-meeting-with-obama-lawmakers-skeptical-on-syria-attack/?print=1




buttersworth
by Bronze Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM
1 mom liked this

Yeah, I think we should.

That's the law. That's how it's supposed to be done.

Our military people aren't first responders for the world, and even if they were, those kids are dead now.

And who killed them? And are we sure with what?

I think those questions need to be answered and not by our wavering, wimpy, distrustful servants who have other agendas for that part of the world.

I mean first there needs to be an explanation of an interview with Wesley Clark who outlined (over a year ago, i beleive) before this whole thing, that our government planned to take out 5 countries in 7 years and Syria was on the list

So yeah, making that decision is important, going the legal route is imperative, and knowing for sure who actually committed this act is central.

What makes me sick is that the media throws up a horrendous picture, and captions it with whatever narrative they want, and that's supposed to be the judge and jury for us to take to heart.

No, how lazy are we Americans gonna be!

We cannot put more people in harm's way by assuming, and to also assume that the media, the government and the military higher ups don't manipulate things is to be incredibly naive.

The best we can do to save lives is say NO to war at all. But to know what would be just, we probably will never have that information, as a general public, to ever be able to weigh that decision. and that's why we have representatives...but unfortunately they are vultures that can neither be trusted nor do they generally ever represent much more than private interest.

The longer they take to decide, frankly, the more lives will be saved. and if they say NO TO WAR, how many millions would be saved...because you're talking about Russia backing Syria, and Russia's not a 3rd world nation....know what I'm saying? I'm saying we are back to the cold war. Or worse, this is the middle east.

Dont be so foolhardy and hastey. Please

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Quoting kcangel63:

I think this writer needs to remember that the US is just as guilty of using chemical weapons to kill innocent men, women, and children. Maybe we deserve to be attacked and put under a new regime.



You are hard to read.

Though the new regime part sounds fabulous and appropriate.

kayjayjess
by Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM
2 moms liked this

Personally in my opinion, Obama stating he would wait and have a debate is a farce. It doesn't matter what Congress says, he is going to do what he wants. We NEED to stay out of it PERIOD!!!

My children are the source of my strength, frustration, happiness, insanity, sanity, irritability.  They are the definition of unconditional love.

kcangel63
by Amanda on Sep. 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM
LOL! I'm having a hard time focusing. My head hurts and I'm preggo hormonal. I can't take anything for my head, so my brain is fuzzy.

I'm trying to say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the US sees chemical weapons used on innocent civilians as a crime that deserves invasion, they better look around. Our government kills innocents with chemical weapons. We need to be careful, because one day another country is going to say the same thing about us, that we say about others.

I hope that made more sense.

I hope the regime change is by the doing if the American people, and not another country (like China).


Quoting Billiejeens:

Quoting kcangel63:

I think this writer needs to remember that the US is just as guilty of using chemical weapons to kill innocent men, women, and children. Maybe we deserve to be attacked and put under a new regime.





You are hard to read.



Though the new regime part sounds fabulous and appropriate.



gludwig2000
by Gina on Sep. 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

 As much as it hurts to see those dead children, we can not rush in without considering everything, and that is why he NEEDS to wait and let Congress vote on whether or not we act.  WE are talking about a hostile action that may drag us into another war, so we need to tread carefully.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN