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.