US sending warship to within striking distance of Syria....

[|Numbers|]

http://polldaddy.com/poll/7365970/

 

GIVE OBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA ?

 

YES  9%  48,320 votes

NO  91%  514,394 votes

 

562,714 Total Votes

 

 

In other words, the issue is clear to the people.  Congress better understand with clarity also...

[|Elflocko|]

http://polldaddy.com/poll/7365970/

 

 

 

In other words, the issue is clear to the people.  Congress better understand with clarity also...

 

I'm sure the sound of cash from defense contractors funneling into their accounts will drown out anything the people have to say... 

[|Numbers|]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/senate-crafted-syria-resolution-riddled-loopholes-/

US boots allowed on the ground. Thank you to all who support this ... Sarcasm intended. I'll remember this come voting day.

[T-Dub]

 

I'm sure the sound of cash from defense contractors funneling into their accounts will drown out anything the people have to say... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes well. I believe the quoted statement above describes the situation succinctly and with exceptional clarity, leaving little to be added.

[Rumble In the Jungle]

[|Elflocko|]

 

edit: the GIF worked in the preview, Downvote Dick!

 

 

Yes well. I believe the quoted statement above describes the situation succinctly and with exceptional clarity, leaving little to be added.

 

I was able to see it right after you posted it; highly appropriate.

 

And thanks...

[|Numbers|]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/04/who-voted-for-the-syria-resolution/

 

Final tally: 10 to 7, with one senator voting present.

 

Who voted yes?: Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (by proxy — was absent due to the Jewish holiday), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

 

Who voted no?: Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

 

Who voted present?: Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

 

Among senators facing reelection in 2014: Six senators on the committee — Shaheen, Coons, Durbin, Udall, Markey and Risch — face the voters next year. Shaheen, Coons and Durbin voted yes. Udall and Risch voted no, while Markey voted present.

 

Among senators mulling a 2016 presidential campaign:  Rubio and Paul are considered leading GOP contenders for president. Both of them voted against the resolution.

[|Numbers|]

Elf:  Thank you for pointing that out.  Here is the breakdown;

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/

 

Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No

 

 

Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

 

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED’s request.

 

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a “limited” strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

 

The analysis of contributions from employees and PACs of defense industry interests ranges from 2007 through 2012 — based on data tracked by OpenSecrets.org.

The authorization must be approved by the full Senate and House.

 

Among other things, the deal sets a 60-day engagement limit, and bars U.S. ground troops from combat missions. The plan essentially is the legal basis to authorize President Barack Obama to punish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons, killing some 1,400 people as part of its ongoing civil war.

 

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “yes” were Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at $127,350; and Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.

 

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “no” were Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) at $86,500; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at $62,790; and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) at $59,250.

 

[|Numbers|]

A little bit of information about Chris Murphy.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator-tells-rachel-maddow-why-he-voted-no-on-syria-resolution/

 

Dem Senator Tells Rachel Maddow Why He Voted No on Syria Resolution

 

Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow spoke to one of the three Democrats to vote against the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Syria resolution earlier today. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Maddow it was a “close call” for him, but ultimately he decided military action could make the situation in Syria “worse.”

 

“It was a close call for me,” Murphy said, “and when I talked to people back in Connecticut it’s a close call for many of them as well.” He said, “there is always a belief, a want, a need to believe that when there is a problem in the world that there is an American button we can press to solve it.”

 

“I really worry, the reason for my no vote today, is that one, I think that military action could perhaps actually make the situation worse, could just lend more chaos to an already volatile situation,” Murphy continued. “And second, today’s action not only committed us to a potential military strike, but also committed the Congress to supporting arming of the rebels. And those two actions together, I think bind us to this conflict for as long as it lasts.”

 

Murphy told Maddow that when he watches President Obama speak about the situation in Syria, “the look in his face reminded me of the look in his eyes when he came to Newtown shortly after that shooting. I know that he’s moved here, I know that the American people are moved. But, I think the reason why you see the American people lining up against this action, they’re wary of war, and they really question whether we can make the difference.”

 

 

http://www.murphy.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345600

 

Press Release of Senator Murphy 

MURPHY STATEMENT ON POTENTIAL U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTION IN SYRIA 

 

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

 

NEW HAVEN—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) released the following statement regarding reports that the Obama Administration is considering military strikes against Syria:

There is no longer any question that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons to commit unspeakable atrocities against the people of Syria—his actions are absolutely reprehensible and in blatant violation of international law.

 

In the short-term, however, there is little chance that targeted air strikes would destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, making the strikes little more than a slap on the wrist. Moreover, those air strikes would prompt a reaction from Assad as well as the countries that finance his murderous regime. Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria.

 

In addition to increasing humanitarian aid to the millions of innocent Syrians suffering at the hands of Assad, we must maintain concerted diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on the regime through the international community. As the primary financial backers of the current Syrian regime, Russia would be making a grave error by endorsing Assad’s actions, further isolating the country when its leadership in Moscow already faces intense scrutiny over the treatment of its own people.

 

I urge the Administration to continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.

 

 

http://www.murphy.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344133

 

MURPHY, UDALL, LEE, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO BLOCK MILITARY FUNDS TO SYRIA 

 

Bipartisan Bill Would Ban Direct or Indirect Aid for Military or Paramilitary Operations in Syria; Would not Prevent Humanitarian Aid

 

Thursday, June 20, 2013

 

WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced bipartisan legislation to prohibit the President from using any funds on activities that would escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

 

The bill would ban the Department of Defense, the CIA and all other intelligence agencies from funding any military, paramilitary or covert operations in Syria.The legislation would not affect humanitarian aid.

 

All four senators have spoken out strongly in opposition to President Obama’s decision to arm rebel groups in Syria.  Murphy, Udall and Paul, all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cast the lone votes in Committee against authorizing the President to arm and train rebels fighting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

 

[Jamie_B]

Sadly that chart does not surprise me at all.

 

Public funded elections.

[sois]

does anyone else have zero idea what this is about?  

 

does this country have oil or something?

[|Numbers|]

does anyone else have zero idea what this is about?  

 

does this country have oil or something?

 

Are you asking whether the impending conflict has anything to do with US national interest ?

 

Its an extension of cold war policy of a proxy war.  Other than that control of the Mid East oil...  Or you can blame the French, the Ba'athist, the Nazi's, the Jewish people, Al Qaeda, or Bush...

 

Doesn't really matter to me what the reasoning is for the impending conflict.  In the end, the result will still be the same.

 

Note:  In 2010, oil accounted for 25 % of Syria's GDP.

[sois]

 

Are you asking whether the impending conflict has anything to do with US national interest ?

 

 

Yes, that's a good starting point, obviously the answer is yes if there is a war looming.

[|Numbers|]

Did anyone else see the evidence that was presented ?  One of them is a picture of dead bodies reportedly from Syria.

 

The only problem is this piece of evidence is over 10 years old and from Iraq...  Al Musayyib, Iraq – May 27, 2003

 

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/breitbart-john-kerrys-syria-proof-was-a-recycled-iraq-photo-from-10-years-ago/

[|Numbers|]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/31/more-than-week-after-suspected-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-no-definite/

 

US states 1429 people were killed.  Doctors without borders states 355 killed.  SYRIAN OBSERVATORY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS states the total is 502 killed.  Syrian opposition states 1460 people were killed. 

[|Numbers|]

Congress...

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CCAL-113scal-2013-09-09/pdf/CCAL-113scal-2013-09-09.pdf

 

S.J. Res. 21  Mr. Menendez

Joint resolution to authorize the limited and specified use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria.

 

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres21pcs/pdf/BILLS-113sjres21pcs.pdf

 

page 8 of S.J. Res. 21

 

1 SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
2 (a) CHANGING OF MOMENTUM ON BATTLEFIELD.—
3 It is the policy of the United States to change the momen

4 tum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable
5 conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the con

6 flict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

 

page 6  of S.J. Res. 21

 

11 (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—
12 Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers
13 Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress de
14 clares that this section is intended to constitute spe
15 cific statutory authorization within the meaning of
16 section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50
17 U.S.C. 1544(b)), within the limits of the authoriza
18 tion established under this section.

 

 

page 7 of S.J. Res. 21

 

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATION.
2 The authority granted in section 2(a) does not au
3 thorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the
4 ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1547

 

(c)  Introduction of United States Armed Forces 
For purposes of this chapter, the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

 

[|Numbers|]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-no-soldiers-put-risk-attacking-syria_752976.html

 

 

(Secretary Kerry)

 

But no, there will be no boots on the ground, no soldiers put at risk, no lengthy action, no long term – this is not Iraq, it is not Afghanistan, it’s not Libya, it’s not Kosovo. It’s nothing remotely like that.

 

 

:44:

[Homer_Rice]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z-sdO6pwVHQ[/media]

[|Numbers|]

"World War 3 will be fought all over the globe, Russia, China, Cincinnati..."

"...a 10 dollar donation will get you your own senator for a year..."

 

"Paid for by Koch Industries..." Was this part of the joke ?

 

Sounds like it may not be because of the tone and content of the video. 

 

Koch supports the tea party and anything / anybody opposed to Obama.  They also have a history that looks pretty bad also on environmental issues among other things.

[Khatmandude]

The contextual groundwork for World War III is being laid out........oh shit, NFL is on, no time for this.  

[Homer_Rice]

"Paid for by Koch Industries..." Was this part of the joke ?

 

Sounds like it may not be because of the tone and content of the video. 

It's Second City, but it does seem a bit too earnest at times. All I know is that I'm close to getting on Vol's bandwagon and giving up on the Democratic party.

[sois]

so is this started yet?

[|Numbers|]

so is this started yet?

 

Do you count the troops on the ground in Jordan and Turkey ?  Do you count the "advisors" on the ground in Syria ?  If you do then yes it has started.  If you don't then the answer is no.

[|Numbers|]

It's Second City, but it does seem a bit too earnest at times. All I know is that I'm close to getting on Vol's bandwagon and giving up on the Democratic party.

 

Not sure but to be honest, these type of things tear me up inside.  I just want peace.  I don't give two shits who or what party gives me peace, that is who I will vote for.  PERIOD

[Jamie_B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0#h[]

 

A Plea for Caution From Russia By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

 

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

 

 

 

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

 

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

 

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

 

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

 

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

 

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

 

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

 

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

 

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

 

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

 

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

 

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

 

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

 

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

 

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

 

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

 

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.