Alan Grayson on Syria: War is “not the right decision”

It would be a shame not to weigh in on the much-rumored coming war with Syria.

John has written about the problem of “yes he’s a murderer, but…” I want to wade into a different angle. What’s the U.S. national interest in going in?

Syria via Shutterestock

Syria via Shutterestock

Here’s Democratic Cong. Alan Grayson discussing this question on SiriusXM’s “Progress” (h/t Twitter and DownWithTyranny):

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/107832683″ params=”” width=” 100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

At less than a minute in:

Question: Should [Obama] go to Congress for … permission, basically?

Grayson: I don’t think that’s the more important question. The more important questions is, is this the right decision on the merits? And it’s not.

And at 7:28 Grayson explains why he thinks evidence that Syria’s Assad used gas in the attacks is “genuinely ambiguous.” He makes an interesting case. There’s a reason that it takes months of on-the-ground investigation to genuinely verify such claims.

Listen to the rest; it’s a sensible discussion of U.S. strategic interests in Syria, support for a war in Syria, whether Obama got snookered (by Obama) into writing a verbal check the Air Force can’t cash, and the roll of the U.S. as “the world’s policeman.”

Me, I have trouble with that last one too. If we can appoint ourselves as the world’s cop, so can anyone else, ’cause fair is fair, right? It’s a right that everyone has or no one has. And if everyone has it, watch out.

Presuming that the U.S. is the only one with the right to play cop has roots in American Exceptionalism, and trust me, folks — At this point, America’s exceptional only in our own starry eyes.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius


Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

66 Responses to “Alan Grayson on Syria: War is “not the right decision””

  1. Guest says:

    One interesting side issue of all this, is how it is the GOP that is boxed in a corner now. The fact is they wont be able to resist… they will approach this issue (they already are approaching it), solely from the standpoint of what will be most damaging politically to the President of the United States. Their prime focus isn’t what should be in response to the use of Chemical Weapons, but rather how can they use this to hurt Barack Obama.

    What the President has done, by going to Congress, is shine a GLOBAL spotlight on the true, and very ugly nature of the Republican Party, where Obama Derangement Syndrome trumps all else. Where their ideological, and yes.. pathological hatred of President Obama outweighs all other considerations; be it National Security, International Law, the lives of Syrians, the safety and security of Israel, the threat posed by Iran, or even the credibility of United States on the world stage.

    For the GOP, all these are secondary to the chance to politically poke the President of the United States in eye. It it is an opportunity the GOP will run towards at full speed, and in doing so seal their fate as a party doomed to national irrelevance. By going to Congress on this issue, President Obama has forced the Republicans on the hill into a corner where they only options are to either grow up, or end up showing the entire world, what reckless children they really are.

    The smart money is in the latter…

  2. Ferdiad says:

    I don’t understand why everyone has start this discussion with “yes, Assad is a brutal dictator and murderer.” Why is that true? What do you think the United States would do if foreign fighters were flooding in from Mexico and were knocking on DC’s door? Do you think we would bomb them and kill them? What would Israel do if Arab fighters were flooding in from Egypt and invading the country and taking up arms with the local Arab population? What would Britain, France……… If you come back with “yes but he is a dictator.” Ok, I’ll give you that, but why is he a dictator? When Sunni overlords were suppressing and oppressing the minority populations of Alawite, Christian, Druze, Jews, etc. before Assad’s father rose to power, was that acceptable? Generally speaking, life in Syria hasn’t been that bad under Assad. Syria has a chilly but stable and peaceful border with Israel in the Golan. It has not invaded any neighbors and even pulled out of Lebanon when asked. If we don’t want a dictator (which I agree would be better) then we better be prepared to send in boots on the ground to enforce it. But, I don’t think we have much credibility there after our response in Egypt and implicit assistance of the military coup.

  3. karmanot says:

    Yep, Gilbert & Sullivan and macho practice for the British Prince.

  4. Kim_Kaufman says:

    is this “wag the dog” to get the NSA revelations off the front pages?

  5. buttercup says:

    Obama has been invaded by the body snatchers. He has had so much fun killing people from afar with drones that all he wants to do now is to continue to push the buttons and watch the smoke.

  6. lynchie says:

    I wasn’t directing that at you but at the Noble Committee. He has no conscience so what the award means is totally lost on him. Just as his promises during his first election about making things better for the average american. He of the grand speech with no content, no intention of doing anything and his dogged progess to killing, making the rich happier and never have one ounce of interest in what the common person in this country faces every day. Of course it is always easy to kill or condemn your own troops to death if you are thousands of miles away. The one thing i admired about Patton was that he put himself on the front lines with his troops. He constantly put himself in harms way. Obama not so much and of course George W. the yellow bastard he ordered death and torture and in the next breath had a new nickname for one of his staff (brownie, turd blossom, etc.).

  7. Naja pallida says:

    For the war contractors… not for anyone else.

  8. Naja pallida says:

    I know it never meant he was a pacifist, but you’d think it might mean that he wouldn’t be actively ordering the deaths of hundreds of people in a half-dozen different countries at the same time.

  9. mark_in_toronto says:

    Why is American history, particularly modern history basically ignored when making decisions on foreign (and domestic) affairs? It’s as if American policy-makers are living in absolute denial thinking, “maybe, just maybe it’ll work this time.”

  10. ezpz says:

    Following up on a previous comment:

    U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

    Read more: http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html#ixzz2dXtCVkf1
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  11. lynchie says:

    It never meant he was a pacifist. The award was simply giving him $1 million as seed money to do what the 1% wanted done.

  12. Tom Mingmitmee says:

    War is good for the economy. Simple as that.

  13. HelenRainier says:

    A curious point about “chemical” attacks (at least I think so). Chemical weapons are outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Pepper spray is considere a chemical yet our own government agencies will use them against our own citizens — a la John Pike and elsewheres.

  14. Naja pallida says:

    So… we’ve tasked six destroyers, with some 200 cruise missiles between them, to the region just outside of Syrian waters. You know, because the Syrian navy, which consists of two second-hand frigates, and hand-full of missile boats, all dating from the 1960s, are posing such a threat to us. And cruise missiles will be such a definitive solution to stop al-Assad from using chemical weapons. It’s not an atrocity if we kill a bunch of Syrians, only when he does. I wonder, will we get permission to use the airspace of Lebanon to hit targets near Damascus, or will we commit yet another act of war at the same time?

    So when will the Nobel committee demand the Peace Prize be returned? How many acts of war does one have to commit before the entire sentiment has no meaning?

  15. Drew2u says:

    “American Exceptionalism”? Interesting phrase. Is it that descriptor of the America that ended Woeld war 2? If so, let’s take a look at that exceptionalism: a president that demanded companies to stop making their own products and make military machines, a citizenry that is drafted and Ta generation lost to war, families broken, fod shortages and sacrifices, all culminating to the unleashing of the unimaginable; to which afterward, hundreds of thousands of troops coming home with injuries and the prospects of no jobs except what Congress could pass for their sacrifice.
    Exceptional? Yes, it was. For all respect given to the soldiers if today, it is a different America and wholly far less exceptional.
    P.s. Lovin’ the ad box that blocks half of what I write.

  16. Bill_Perdue says:

    There’s a petition to nominate Chelsea Manning for the Nobel. http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7612

  17. lynchie says:

    Well Britain did the Falklands. they beat a third world country for a largely deserted country. Brilliant

  18. lynchie says:

    But O’highness got the Nobel Peace prize.

  19. lynchie says:

    No she is full of the solid stuff known in these parts as shit.

  20. lynchie says:

    The military spends a fortune figuring out which bomb, bullet (low velocity they tumble and make a bigger mess) and missle inflicts the most damage and destruction. If gassing is so bad why have we a stockpile of these types of weapons. Hell we developed them and gave them to Saddam Hussein for one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    I guess its only bad if someone else use them.

  21. lynchie says:

    Too True. So much for American exceptionalism. the best military can’t defeat an underfunded, poorly armed force of untrained peasants time and time again. Says something to not being able to change tactics. Billion dollar planes, million dollar missles, million dollar drones don’t change to dynamic of fighting today’;s wars. We are locked into WW II with two forces with uniforms and following an age old techniques. Today’s guerilla wars leaves us wanting and our military leaders spend trillions on a 60 year old way of fighting. It didn’t work in Viet Nam and every subsequent conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan are typical. We don’t know who we are fighting, where their forces are and how to conclude a conflict. 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are unable to admit we lost, made a mess of two countries and can’t admit we have to come home. We can’t even deal with making OUR civilians have a better life. We make the poor and elderly pay so the rich get tax breaks and hear about them being job creators but have record unemployment. That policy is working as well as a effort at these military excursions into others peoples problems.

  22. karmanot says:

    History will note that aside from the Falkland’s war, America became accustomed to waging wars, not winning them.

  23. karmanot says:

    Yep, the Saudis are parasites, who carry a big stick called oil.

  24. karmanot says:

    Excellent comment L.!

  25. lynchie says:

    Good post Becca. It seems no one plans the next 3, 4, of god forbid 5 steps ahead. Like Bush having no plan for ending Iraq or what it might do to the country. The government does not want to admit the costs. We spent over $1 billion in our intervention in bombing Libya and that country remains a mess. Every country we stuck our nose into is worse off. We have no national security interests in Syria beyond the oil companies thirst for their oil. I remember Vietnam and the sight of Cronkite covering that war in the trenches with pictures of dead and dying, body bags and hearing of friends and neighbors kids who were killed started to sober up our love for that war. Kent State was the cap. Seeing our own kids killed by US national guard was just too much of a sin. Bush was smart he banned photos of body bags coming home. No one in Congress met the bodies or the injured, the old out of sight out of mind ploy. If the countries in that region including Turkey and France aren’t appalled at the gassing regardless who did it then why do we as an almost bankrupt nation take it on ourselves to kill some more innocent citizens in the hope Assad will be somehow be cowed. The only way a world sheriff works if all the countries who are the haves agree to work together to stop these civil wars and to prevent despots from killing their citizens without reason. The U.N. is such an organization but it functions like a bunch of kids with a few bullyies having the right to veto every action they don/t like. This is the wrong time for another war, the possible end game is totally uncertain and frankly I don’t trust or believe anyone in our intelligence community. They have been wrong is so many ways and levels as to make this belief they have proof laughable. Biden and Kerry have shown to be just as interested in killing some brown people as the GOP. Obama and his Peace prize given before he learned directions to where the toilets in the White House were located was appalling.

    I post again this video of General Wesley Clark and his thoughts on the Neocon Middle East plans.

    http://www.infowars.com/libya-and-syria-the-neocon-plan-to-attack-seven-countries-in-five-years/

  26. perljammer says:

    Hey, you forgot about FDR occupying Great Britain and invading most of Western Europe back in the 1940s.

  27. Indigo says:

    War is the default choice in the United States since the days when we twisted the UN into letting us meddle in the Korean Civil War, the Vietnamese Civil War, and a whole desert full of Middle Eastern squabbles since then, every one of which has ended in stalemate or actual but unacknowledged defeat of the US military while we ignore the accompanying acknowledgement that could open the door to learning a Very Important Lesson: Stay out of other people’s civil wars.

  28. BeccaM says:

    War should always be the decision of last resort, not the first.

    A war undertaken should be accompanied by frequent reports as to how exactly much it is costing in terms of money (that otherwise can’t then be spent in making people’s lives better) and blood.

    A war should be covered wall-to-wall in the media, complete with explicit video and photos, so that we see the mangled bodies and slaughtered soldiers and civilians on both sides. Death tolls and casualties should be front-page news.

    I believe those who argue for war should be required to explain why they haven’t gone to their local recruiting station to sign up for the armed services and ask to be sent into combat. If they’re too old or physically unfit to serve, then why they haven’t urged their family members to join.

    A rational discussion of war needs to include the question, “Will we create more enemies than people we actually help?”

    And the question, “Are we being lied into this war, as has happened many times before, by those whose real goals are nothing at all like they claim?”

  29. ezpz says:

    So to save face, Obomber will now outkill the number of alleged victims of chemical attacks.

    And we don’t even know who, if anyone at all, used those chemicals. For all we know, it could have been the US itself as a means to provoke just this type of ‘reaction’ or ‘punishment’ for violating ‘international norms’ as obomber calls it. Notice how he doesn’t use the word ‘law’ as in international law, but instead says international norms.

    Why is the world not asking about the US’s indiscriminate use of drones as a violation of not only international ‘norms’ but international LAW? Maybe the world IS asking, but the questions are being filtered through this regime and its puppet media.

    Does the president feel that the following carnage, which is being perpetrated by the US, is in accordance with international ‘norms’? Oh silly me, I forgot, we’re exceptional and we’re the moral authority on international norms. We’re the shining example (Warning: graphic, painful)….

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+drone+strikes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WGIeUs78G6mlsQT7nYGACA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=680

    They actually have names, too:

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

  30. Bill_Perdue says:

    You’re not excused. Ignorance is never an excuse. Carter attacked Iran.

    Thanks. Eisenhower attacked Guatemala and Iran. I can’t be expected to remember everything every mad dog Warmonger in the WH did.

    I have criticized Truman for madd mass murders on many occasions.

  31. Ford Prefect says:

    That’s what I’m afraid of. It’s not like the Saudi option is any better, for that matter. Indeed, there are no good options, save doing nothing for the time being.

  32. Ford Prefect says:

    +1000 on the incompetence charge. Samantha Power might describe them as a “Problem From Hell.” Well, if she wasn’t one of them anyway.

    As for the AL, the Saudis basically control them and they prefer the US act as their proxies, lest they get their hands dirty. Also too, for all the weapons we sell them, they’re mostly for parades and big soccer match fly-bys.

  33. Naja pallida says:

    Pretty sure that by subsidizing the Israeli military to the tune of billions a year, even if we express lofty words of not supporting such a strategy, we do anyway.

  34. Ford Prefect says:

    Well, the Israelis have already launched three or four air strikes into Syria, so that cat is out of the proverbial bag. Furthermore, it’s been well known for almost two years now the Israeli strategy in Syria is to create three bantustan states, eliminating any perceived threats from Syria by plunging them into chaos, death and destruction–iow, they can’t attack Israel if they’re busy killing each other. So not only do their neighbors not want them involved, the Israelis themselves have stated they have no interest in “stability operations.”

    My question is what is the US position on that lovely little strategy? I’m hoping they won’t support it. If they do, that’s quite the opposite of humanitarianism, eh?

  35. karmanot says:

    When Howard gave his shout out, I knew he would get my vote.

  36. karmanot says:

    Exactly. The Arab League is playing us big time…..standing by while we once again bumble into another Middle East disaster. O’ Harvard Law apparently never read any English or French history. It’s hard to imagine a more incompetent CIC than Bush, but Obozo’s giving it a good run.

  37. Ford Prefect says:

    Why can’t she just go off and become an arms industry lobbyist, like all the other tools?

  38. Ford Prefect says:

    There’s no need to update it. The agenda is exactly the same.

  39. Ford Prefect says:

    Oh, they’re not standing by. They’re all getting ramped up for a regional war, should it come to that. The Russians just sent a destroyer and a cruiser (missile ships) into the Med and that’s not just for “messaging.” They could assist in air defense, for starters. I doubt they’d attack us, but they could, just like we do elsewhere, enable a Syrian attack on our ships. The US calls it “sharing intelligence.”

    One little miscalculation and this thing can fly out of control. There are too many interlocking relationships (read: competing agendas) for this to not go sideways if the administration keeps acting like fucking poseurs.

  40. karmanot says:

    Pelosi has been full of gas for years now.

  41. Naja pallida says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t count on anything coming out of Joe that disagrees with the President.

  42. karmanot says:

    It certainly is an interesting time. Israel will wait and let us do their dirty work.

  43. Asterix says:

    It’s worthwhile noting that the PNAC website:

    http://newamericancentury.org/

    hasn’t been updated since 2005, but the site is intact some 8 years later, so someone must be paying the bill to keep it active.

  44. karmanot says:

    Oh yes, Unka Joe has spent a career being bought. Thanks to Biden the Banking industry scored a major coup in making it more difficult for families to declare bankruptcy, most of which had been caused by catastrophic medical necessities. Biden is a disgusting tool and if nominated for President next round will send the Demos down the drain…..

  45. Naja pallida says:

    I can’t really include Israel in that list, because all the countries in the region would shit themselves a giant brick if they took military action outside their borders. While I agree that they should be part of any coalition to help stabilize the region, and they have the resources to be a primary contributor, their fellow nations simply wouldn’t let them.

    And Iraq is still broken, just the way we left it. They’re on the brink of being an Iranian puppet state, and I don’t think have the capability of being useful in this situation, short of being a place where refugees will likely end up, because they are basically incapable of protecting their own borders effectively.

  46. karmanot says:

    Meanwhile, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel stand by and watch us buy another cheap rug for untold human costs and our treasure. Obama’s rush to Afghanistan is proof enough of his gross incompetence to be Commander and Chief. His hubris is deciding absolute power to assassinate anyone he deems suspect has gone to his head and he has painted himself into yet another corner.

  47. Asterix says:

    Unca Joe was also a strong proponent of single-payer health care–which vanished from his web site the day he accepted the Veep nomination.

    Of course, he’d reply today that bombing Syria isn’t “war”;’ it’s a “stabilizing humanitarian action”.

  48. Asterix says:

    If wishes were horses, eh? Of course, none of that is going to happen.

  49. caphillprof says:

    You could simply say the American people are not interested in thinking too deeply about anything.

  50. caphillprof says:

    If Mr. Kerry would prosecute people who fed him knowingly false information, I’d prefer he’d prosecute first and resign later.

  51. Ford Prefect says:

    This just in (sort of): Joe Biden thinks POTUS launching a war without congressional approval is an impeachable offense. Yes, you heard that right!

    I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him.

    It’s good to know Biden “has our back” on this, isn’t it? Hey, is that a derisive laughter I hear?!

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/joe-bidens-case-that-waging-war-without-congress-is-an-impeachable-offense/279160/

  52. Naja pallida says:

    Kerry: We will not repeat the mistakes of Iraq.

    Nope… we’re gonna make all new ones! Go us!

  53. Naja pallida says:

    Not just the first one… it’s the only one ever offered.

  54. Naja pallida says:

    That’s just it, sure we feel bad for Syrian’s suffering… but in order to stop the suffering of one group, our only option is to make another group suffer. So really, what is gained? We shoot the ones we don’t like and hope the ones we do like are capable of forming a new government?

  55. Naja pallida says:

    There isn’t anything we can do to help them, really. It is a no-win situation that we have absolutely nothing to gain from. If we move in and start killing people, they’re going to hate us. If we do nothing, they’re going to hate us. If we topple the regime, and the next one isn’t any better, they’re going to hate us. If we do a half-assed job, or make any mistakes at all, they’re going to hate us. I really can’t come up with any possible redeeming reason to put our military budget into Syria. And while I’m sure it sounds terrible, saving the lives of a few Syrians on one side, at the expense of Dog knows how many others is not a solution. Killing one group before they kill the others, because we like one group better, even though all groups hate us, doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I think it’s long past time for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Lebanon, Jordan… to get off their asses and participate in stabilizing their own region of the world. They have the military power, and a much better reason to do so than we do.

  56. JozefAL says:

    Excuse me. “Carter attacked Iran and was defeated.” Really? In what fucking parallel universe, Bill because he did NO such thing in THIS one. Some of your other “observations” are, at best, specious but this one was really way off-base.

    Carter’s ONLY “military” adventure in regard to Iran was the effort to rescue the hostages. THAT WAS IT, YOU MORON.

    As for the rest, I’m surprised you didn’t somehow tie the Rwandan genocide and all the conflicts in Bosnia (including the ethnic cleansings and mass rapes) on Clinton. And where was your attack on Eisenhower for HIS “attacks” on Guatemala and Iran? Or your attack on FDR for his awful full-fledged declarations of war against Germany, Italy and Japan? And why didn’t you attack Truman for his decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while you were at it? I mean, the tin-foil-hat audience has made cases that EVERY action the US has taken has been “to protect and enlarge the wealth of American corporations.” Hell, you could even go far enough back and attack McKinley for his attacks on the Kingdom of Hawai’i as well as his attacking Spain and taking over Cuba. Or Andrew Johnson and Grant for allowing the South to be raped by greedy Northern corporatists during Reconstruction. And let’s attack Jackson for launching mass attaciks on Native Americans.

  57. Asterix says:

    I’m listening to Kerry go on and on about the things that “we know” about Syria.

    We’ve been here before. According to another vice president, we “knew” things about Iraq also.

    Mr. Kerry, if any word of what you claim to be true is false, will you immediately resign and recommend prosecution of the people who fed you this information? Will you stake everything you own on the accuracy of what you’re claiming?

    If not, go away. We’ve heard it before.

  58. Ford Prefect says:

    Yeah, we’re “exceptional” all right. Exceptionally stupid.

    Here’s Nancy Pelosi, quoted in Politico, from her statement during the conference call:

    “It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.

    First off, the national security angle is a bald faced lie. Secondly, how does igniting a regional war (the most likely result of Obama’s dick-swinging) enhance “regional security?” And lastly, how does any of this enhance “global security?” She can’t or won’t explain. Neither will the WH.

    I’m increasingly thinking this has more to do with domestic politics, even for France and Britain, who both need to justify their military budgets in the face of austerity. Ditto for the US. So if anything, they’re deliberately undermining national security so they can get away with murder. An accidental war with, say, Russia would certainly help Obama get his Grand Bargain. A massive oil shock is also apparently not a concern for our betters. Why not create the kind of crisis they love to take advantage of?

    Perhaps they’re looking to provoke Iran into acting. Perhaps they’re ignoring the possibility that Russia and China might find every means of “punishing” the US for its intransigence, short of exchanging missiles.

  59. HolyMoly says:

    A couple of thoughts:

    (1) It would seem to me that all this talk about Syria has already achieved one objective: The media has stopped talking about illegal NSA activities. And since we’re about to be “a nation at war” for the umpteenth time in recent memory, of COURSE we have to give up some of our freedoms in order to keep them, or something like that.

    (2) One of these days we’re going to piss off the wrong country. Or, I should say, in our eternal search to find yet another weak nation to beat up on, we’re going to end up attacking a country who has a not-so-weak friend. Aren’t Syria and Russia allies? Doesn’t Russia have a naval installation in Syria? They might sit by and let things happen this time, but all it would take is a stray bullet or an errant bomb (we all know THAT happens every time we drop one) to find its way on or dangerously near Russian military property or personnel to really raise the stakes a bit.

    (3) How would we react if, say, China decided to intervene in Central or South America the next time there’s some sort of political unrest? Obviously, we’d accuse them of doing so for reasons other than humanitarian, since they’d be flexing their muscles just south of our border.

    (4) The whole “poison gas” thing to me sounds too much like a tired old Bushism. The accusation is made for justification, followed by public support, followed by a fruitless initial search, followed by ending the search, followed by Obama making some sick joke video about it at the next annual media shindig.

    (5) Britain’s Parliament just voted against their country’s participation in an intervention, which should tell us something about the veracity of the chemical weapons claims. They usually don’t hesitate to jump in willy-nilly anytime the U.S. wants to go on an adventure.

  60. Bill_Perdue says:

    Very good news from England. Parliament has, for now, rejected English participation in Obama’s war plans.

    Obama, a mad dog warmonger, is the latest in a long line of American presidents who lied and plotted to escalate and begin wars of aggression whose only real goal was to protect and enlarge the wealth of American corporations.

    LBJ attack the Dominican Republic to defeat a popular uprising. LBJ invaded Vietnam and Laos and and Nixon attempted to colonize them and attacked Cambodia. They were defeated. Nixon attacked the Republic of Chile on behalf of American mineral companies and was successful and it resulted in tens of thousands of causalities and an additional 285.000 cases of torture and false imprisonment.

    Carter attacked Iran and was defeated.

    Reagan attacked Lebanon and was defeated and he attacked Libya, to no effect. He also attacked Nicaragua. He successfully attacked Grenada.

    Bush1 attacked Iraq and was partly successful. 200,ooo fleeing Iraqi soldiers, mostly conscripts, were murdered in the American kill box on the roads leading back to Iraq. He attacked Panama, killing thousands of civilians.

    Bill Clinton attacked Sudan and Afghanistan and murdered half a million children with his embargo on food, medical and sanitary supplies.

    Bush2, supported by the Clintons, invaded and occupied Iraq and was defeated during the first Obama Administration. Over a million died. Breaking his contradictory campaign promises Obama escalated and tens of thousands of civilians and many GIs died. He also attacked Palestine, supplying the zionists with the missiles, tanks and white phosphorus weapons that continue to take a deadly toll in Gaza. Obama also attacked Libya, Yemen, Bahrain (using his Saudi clients) and Pakistan. Now he’s going after Syria and he still has his sights on Iran.

    The conclusions are inescapable. The US government is the main enemy of the people of the world, and Obama is Caesar. He says he has the right to murder American citizens, detain us indefinitely and spy on us 24/7/365. He’s putting the finishing touches on a police state. It make you wonder not if, but when he’ll cross the Rubicon.

  61. dula says:

    Why should we remove a tyrannical secular leader who gets replaced by a tyrannical theocratic ruler after more civil war? How does that help the Syrian people?

  62. The_Fixer says:

    You can bet that he’s be taken down by any means necessary. He is dangerous because he threatens the status quo and we can’t have that – it’s too profitable to not keep doing what we’ve been doing.

    And I wonder just how successful he would be even if that weren’t the case. We are not known to have a particularly well-informed or sensible electorate in this country. The fact that Bush achieved a near electoral win (we all know he didn’t actually win) when Dean didn’t even make it to the big dance is an indicator that people are not interested in thinking too deeply about our next president.

  63. The_Fixer says:

    Grayson impresses with his on-the-mark and thoughtful discussion of what we know, and what we don’t know.

    The only thing we do know is that the merchants of death want to see yet another ill-advised military intervention for the purposes of lining their pockets. Too bad about the “collateral damage” and the loss of the lives of our own soldiers; It’s all in service to the corporate coffers, so that makes it OK.

    This discussion of us being the world’s policeman has been going on for what seems like forever. In modern times, we can go back to the Korean War (it was described as a “police action” rather than the war that it was) and yet, we learned nothing from that as we had the exact same discussion in every military engagement in which we’ve since participated. Arguably, we could say different things about Afghanistan. But even that was described as a “manhunt” for Osama bin Laden (and a remarkably inefficient one at that). Just like the manhunt for a criminal. Of course, Iraq fits the police action criteria exactly. That criteria seems to be that someone, somewhere is doing something that we don’t like. And facts be damned, indeed, we’ll make up our own “facts” if it means enriching military contractors and playing with the shiny toys that they are all so happy supplying.

    So we never seem to learn that the interventionalist foreign policy that we have embraced not only does not end well, it creates an ever-increasing need to arm-up and get into the next big intervention.

    But it’s all OK – somebody is making a buck, and that’s what it’s all about. Which is really sickening. The only way it ends is if we finally come to our senses and decide that we cannot afford the cash and the blood to do it any more. But that seems to be an increasingly remote possibility when the same people who have access to the press and manipulating public opinion are the ones who are profiting through these unneeded interventions.

  64. We need to stay out. I feel horrible for the Syrians suffering, but why doesn’t the Arab league come and help them? Perhaps if we didn’t have such a long history of invading countries that need our “help” and leaving them worse off, I may feel differently.

  65. cole3244 says:

    war is seldom the right decision but in america it usually is the first decision.

  66. ronbo says:

    If Grayson ran for the office of the President, would he, like Howard Dean, be taken down with an out of context comment or expression?

    Otherwise, how could he NOT be overwhelmingly elected?

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS