THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

How sad it is when Democrats who elected Barack Obama must remain in constant campaign mode to convince the president that many of us who helped put him in office do not want him to repeat the mistakes of the past. The recent (and barely avoided) mistakes that I have in mind are the launch of another war in the Middle East and the appointment of Larry Summers to a position of authority that has anything whatsoever to do with managing the economy of the United States.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S POLITICAL RESOLUTION IS TO SEND EXPLODING MISSILES TO SYRIA

Yesterday, White House chief-of-staff Denis McDonough made the case for launching missile attacks on Syria on David Gregory's "Press the Meat" show.

But ultimately, the resolution of this, David, there's not a military resolution to this. There is a political resolution.

And the political resolution is to launch missiles that will explode and kill people? Will the president and his top aides continue to argue the case in the pure logic of doublespeak? The people who believe the president is feinting may have a point. The president and his top aides seem to have stopped trying to persuade or make sense.

H/T to Charles Pierce at "The Politics Blog."

TAKING ACTION IN SYRIA - ANDREW BACEVICH

How I wish for President Obama, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and every member of Congress would to watch and listen to Andrew Bacevich's brilliant and articulate commentary on the present decision facing the president and Congress with regard to launching missile attacks in Syria.  How I wish for every citizen in the country to watch.  Even those who disagree with Bacevich, might come away better informed.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I mean, if I could have five minutes of the president's time, I'd say, "Mr. President, the issue really is not Syria. I mean, you're being told that it's Syria. You're being told you have to do something about Syria, that you have to make a decision about Syria. That somehow your credibility is on the line."

But I'd say, "Mr. President, that's not true. The issue really here is whether or not an effort over the course of several decades, dating back to the promulgation of the Carter Doctrine in 1980, an effort that extends over several decades to employ American power, military power, overt, covert military power exercise through proxies, an effort to use military power to somehow stabilize or fix or liberate or transform the greater Middle East hasn't worked.

“And if you think back to 1980, and just sort of tick off the number of military enterprises that we have been engaged in that part of the world, large and small, you know, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and on and on, and ask yourself, 'What have we got done? What have we achieved? Is the region becoming more stable? Is it becoming more Democratic? Are we enhancing America's standing in the eyes of the people of the Islamic world?'

"The answers are, 'No, no, and no.' So why, Mr. President, do you think that initiating yet another war, 'cause if we bomb Syria, it's a war, why do you think that initiating yet another war in this protracted enterprise is going to produce a different outcome? Wouldn't it be perhaps wise to ask ourselves if this militarized approach to the region maybe is a fool’s errand.

"Maybe it's fundamentally misguided. Maybe the questions are not tactical and operational, but strategic and political."

From the transcript.

SENATOR VITTER TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL TO ATTACK SYRIA

U.S. Sen. David Vitter said today that he will oppose the White House resolution that calls for a military strike against Syria.

Vitter, R-La., participated in a briefing Wednesday for Senate Armed Services Committee members. Attending were Charles Hagel, secretary of defense, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“After a lot of careful thought and prayer, I have decided that I will vote no on the Syria war resolution,” he said in a news release today.

Will the Republicans be the ones who save us from war? Vitter will vote against the resolution because he's against anything the president proposes, but I'm not choosy about allies in the effort to stop the madness.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) are still undecided.

My guess is President Obama will order the strikes whether Congress votes in favor of the resolution or not, to what good purpose I cannot see.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday granting President Obama limited authority to launch a military strike on Syria in response to its reported use of chemical weapons against civilians.
....

The Senate committee’s version, released late Tuesday by a bipartisan group of senators, would permit up to 90 days of military action against the Syrian government and bar the deployment of U.S. combat troops in Syria, while allowing a small rescue mission in the event of an emergency. The White House also would be required within 30 days of enactment of the resolution to send lawmakers a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria.

This is not good.  I fervently hope the resolution does not pass in the full Senate.  How absurd of the committee to require of the president a plan for a diplomatic solution to end a civil war in another country.  They ask the impossible.  Our leaders live in an alternative universe where they believe they can impose their will on the leaders and people in other countries, if not by decree, then by force of arms.  Why not a resolution to require the president join with other countries to pressure Assad for assurance that he will not again use chemical weapons against his own people?

The committee later approved a McCain amendment aimed at strengthening the moderate rebel groups fighting Assad.

This is madness.  According to Juan Cole:

As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate.

Sen. Kerry says infiltration into the rebel groups by al-Qaeda is not true.  Whom do you believe?   Considering the BS I heard in the testimony, I'm inclined to believe Juan Cole.  What if it is true?  Our intelligence agencies have been wrong before.  How then will the US prevent aid (weapons) from getting into the wrong rebel hands in the midst of the chaos of a civil war?  What could possibly go wrong?

Dylan Scott at TPM addresses the meaning of McCain's amendments:

McCain introduced new language that would declare it U.S. policy to “change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria.” It passed through the committee on a voice vote, and the committee later approved the resolution 10-7, with one present vote from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

McCain’s addition doesn’t quite say “regime change” — and the White House has said that would not be the purpose of military action — but it sounds a lot like regime change and describes a new government in Syria as the ultimate outcome. And with Congress already appearing uncomfortable voting for war, any language that seems to increase the likelihood of the United States getting entangled in a prolonged intervention is going to be met with skepticism.

Count me in on the thinking that the wording of McCain's amendment "sounds a lot like regime change" and opens the door to many different interpretations which would allow the president to order the military to do whatever he deems necessary if the missile strikes don't accomplish their purpose, which, at best, seems quite unlikely to me.

I listened to as much of the testimony of Secretaries Kerry and Hagel and Gen. Dempsey as I could bear and concluded much of what they said was blatant war propaganda.  The same goes for President Obama's commentary.  No good will come of our military intervention.

Grandpère asked me about the raised hands dyed red.  The protestors were from CODEPINK.

 CODEPINK @codepink

We will not be silenced, and if you attempt to silence us we WILL be seen. Our hands are raised for peace! NO to war on #Syria!

Before I knew the answer, I said, "We will have blood on our hands if we launch missile attacks on Syria."  And we will.  No mistake about that.