Senate Syria resolution: 60 days with an option for 90, no ground troops

posted at 8:41 am on September 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Late last night, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee settled on new language for an authorization to attack Syria for its use of chemical weapons.  Unlike the language proposed by the White House, this explicitly forbids the use of ground troops, limits the action to only Syria, and authorizes force for a maximum of 90 days with the specific intent to stop Bashar al-Assad from using WMDs in the future:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders have reached an agreement on the language for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria for up to 90 days — but with no “boots on the ground.” …

As drafted, the language worked out between Menendez and ranking member Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would authorize the use of force for 60 days, with provisions making it possible that the authorization would be extended for 30 days after that, according to Senate sources.

Via TPM, here’s the draft coming to members of the Foreign Relations Committee:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Syria AUMF

The bar on ground troops isn’t quite as explicit as some would like, though:

Over the last two days, Corker had been insisting on a 30-day deadline for Obama to order any military action against Syria, but Democrats objected to that requirement.

The Tennessee Republican had also sought a flat-out prohibition on the insertion of any American ground forces into Syria.

But Democrats insisted that Obama should be allowed to do so under limited circumstances, such as special-forces operations or to secure stocks of chemical weapons. Corker aides noted the bill includes a prohibition on using American ground forces for “combat operations,” although it is silent on using troops in emergency situations.

What qualifies as an “emergency”?  This will likely be a sticking point for the resolution, but it’s a broader problem than just semantics.  So far, advocates for a military strike seem very confident that Syria and its allies won’t respond to a blatant act of war.  What happens if Syria starts firing anti-ship missiles at our fleet in the Mediterranean?  What happens if Assad sends a division over the Golan Heights, or Hezbollah invades Israel from Lebanon in retaliation?

We might need to put boots on the ground in a hurry in those cases — and that’s where the folly of limited authorizations are exposed.  If Syria responds by attacking the US or our allies, President Obama will have full latitude in sending ground troops under the War Powers Act, at least for 9o days.  He could attack Syria, Iran, and invade western Iraq all over again if he determined that any or all of that was necessary to respond to an attack, which itself was a response to American attacks authorized by Congress in a manner that Capitol Hill thought would be “limited.”  Any attack we launch that is significant enough to damage the Assad regime is very likely to provoke this outcome.

Meanwhile, the House hasn’t settled on specific language yet — they’re still out of town — but a few proposals seem to line up roughly with what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is contemplating:

A pair of House Democrats and a senior House Republican on the Intelligence Committee have released new draft resolutions dealing with President Barack Obama’s authority to attack Syria, illustrating the resistance to the White House’s initial proposal. …

Nunes proposal could be attractive to House Republicans, many of whom are solidly against attacking Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. A draft copy of his bill, provided to POLITICO, requires Obama to come to Congress within 60 days to provide information in nine areas to justify the use of force.

The bill would require an explanation of attempts to build a coalition; a “detailed plan for military action in Syria, including specific goals and military objectives;” what would qualify as degrading the chemical weapons supply; an explanation how a limited military strike would encourage regime change, prevent terrorists from taking control of power or weapons, secure the chemical weapons and deter their future use; how a strike would prevent Iran and Russia from keeping Assad in power; information about Al Qaeda’s access to weapons; an explanation of whether weapons from Libya are being used by the Syrian opposition and an estimation of the cost.

In contrast, Van Hollen and Connolly are supportive of strikes against Syria, but they think Obama’s language ““could open the door to large scale military involvement in Syria and the region.”

“We will not support that resolution,” the pair write in a letter to their colleagues.

Their resolution prohibits ground forces in Syria, limits attacks to 60 days and prohibits Obama from attacking again, unless Obama says that Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons again. The resolution also says Obama can only attack Syria with the goal of preventing use of chemical weapons, not to prevent the stockpiling of them.

In the end, the House will probably just debate whatever comes out of the Senate, since the language there is as close to the kind of limitations that have a prayer of passage in either chamber.  That will also make it easier for Congress to kick the whole mess back to Obama rather than spend a lot of time owning the policy, assuming of course it passes at all — which is not going to be easy.  But Congress had better be prepared to see its limiting language become moot very quickly, and be prepared for a much bigger war as a consequence of this policy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So is Obama running around Stockholm wearing his Nobel Peace Prize like Flava Flav?

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Old and busted: Putin is like the bored kid in the classroom.

New and Hot: I hope Putin will reconsider ..

/Yes, he went there.

Key West Reader on September 4, 2013 at 9:48 AM

So is Obama running around Stockholm wearing his Nobel Peace Prize like Flava Flav?

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

O.M.G. Lmao!!! The visuals.

Key West Reader on September 4, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Obama: We (USA) have to break the habit of ignoring Congress when we go to war.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 9:34 AM

That’s funny, considering that Bush sought and received congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Barry ignored congress and went into Libya on his own.

So apparently, Barry needs to break his own habit.

What a tool he is.

AZCoyote on September 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

It must be pretzel season.

Lots of Democrats twisting and contorting themselves into looking like hawks for war.

This would be hilarious to watch if it weren’t so serious.

Carnac on September 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

U.N. Secretary Says U.S. Can’t Act Against Syria Without Security Council Permission

He’s incorrect, of course, but if Bush’s wars were ‘illegal’ with Congressional and UN approval, what does that make Obama’s war?

I’m sure MSNBC has an answer. /

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:50 AM

On the opposition side:

Free Syrian Army. The moderate force emerged from the street protests and initial Syrian army defections to take on Assad’s force, but is badly divided among different factions.

Sunnis. The Sunnis are a majority in Syria, but have long been marginalized by the regime. The ranks of the Free Syrian Army are overwhelmingly Sunni.

Jabhat al Nusra. A radical Islamic force that has pledged allegiance to al Qaeda, has attracted thousands of militant Muslims from around the world, received money and weapons from supporters, and become the rebels’ most effective fighting force. It is imposing Sharia law in areas it occupies and has skirmished with the Free Syrian Army, at times.

Gulf States. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are largely Sunni monarchies, have been eager to counter the Shiite influence of Iran. They have poured weapons and money to rebel fighters, including militant Islamists over the objections of the U.S.

Turkey and Jordan. Syria’s neighbors have become refuges for hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and a conduit for arms intended for rebels.

Stoic Patriot on September 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Shaping up into Iraq Redux, with the US essentially backing and supporting the radical Sunni al Qaeda supported side.

Comrade O and the Dems have learned nothing from Iraq. Or from Afghanistan. Or from Libya.

The think they are way smarted than GWB and Republicans, and that they know how to handle such things.

I think Maetenloch on Ace’s blog summed it up nicely.

But even if I were convinced that Syria-bombing was exactly what was needed, I would still never put it into the hands of this particular collection of clowns, blowhards, naïve radicals, preening narcissists, high-functioning retards, and generally clueless-but-arrogant space-wasters. Hell some of these people I’d be nervous even trusting to pick up my mail and feed my pets while I was on vacation.

That the planned ineffective pin-prick bombing of Syria, to “send a message”, is not what is needed, it gets even worse. They have no idea what the hell they are doing. They have no plan and are completely driven by events, in this case the need to defend Dear Leader’s honor.

In war your enemies always want you to be reacting to what they do, not the other way around.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Sverige, jag måste be om ursäkt för min ordförande.

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM

You want to speak Cambodian then go somewhere else, we use American here. Homophobe.

Bishop on September 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Breaking: Senator Senile is OUT. AUMF doesn’t allow for as much carnage and breakage as he would like.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Reagan: “Peace Through Strength”

Obama: “War Through Weakness”

Carnac on September 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I’m sure MSNBC has an answer. /

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Clearly it’s raaaaacist to require a black man to seek approval from the U.N. You might as well put him back in chains!

AZCoyote on September 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

And another post goes to moderation for unknown reasons.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

U.N. Secretary Says U.S. Can’t Act Against Syria Without Security Council Permission

He’s incorrect, of course, but if Bush’s wars were ‘illegal’ with Congressional and UN approval, what does that make Obama’s war?

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Hey, it is just because Obama cares do darned much about those Syrians. You only bomb the ones you love.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

That’s funny, considering that Bush sought and received congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Barry ignored congress and went into Libya on his own.

So apparently, Barry needs to break his own habit.

What a tool he is.

AZCoyote on September 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

One other thing. I think the President has closed the door on the “War” vs “military action” arguement hasn’t he.

In his mind, we’re going to war.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I would not put too much significance for Oplan Red or whatever it was called back in the day. Planning staff over at the war department had little to do at the time, and there was a move to make even deeper cuts of our armed forces at the time…sequestration 30′s style…unless there was justification to keeping units alive and personnel on duty. The depression was on…in full swing. This sort of planning was done for other countries…even Japan…though that one envisioned a Japanese invasion of the West Coast, first along with the Imperial Grand Fleet leading the way…all those new coastal artillery guns from the Canadian border down to San Diego were the result…and never used once during WWII.

Now…let’s jump ahead…as recently as 1986-87, plans were updated for US Forces Germany. In the event of war, one annex provided details as to how to best fight our way out of Frankfurt and other major cities where American kasernes were located within densely populated areas. In essence, we would have to drive over a lot of BMW’s and people on the autobahns to get our of Frankfurt…and provision was made for engineer combat vehicles to fire dynamiter charges ahead of convoys if necessary to clear the roads.

Better to plan, way ahead of time…than to try to wing it when the ordnance cuts loose.

Barry and Kerry could learn a lot if they only took that last sentence to heart.

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

أنا نضح

That’s “I am a douche named Obama” in Arabic

Key West Reader on September 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Breaking: Senator Senile is OUT. AUMF doesn’t allow for as much carnage and breakage as he would like.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM

right decision for all the wrong reasons.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Bishop on September 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Just to clarify…am I a homophobe or a bigot? At my age I get confused easily. Thanks in advance. Hate to trouble you. :-)

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Breaking: Senator Senile is OUT. AUMF doesn’t allow for as much carnage and breakage as he would like.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Just so you know, “Senator Senile” is not particularly helpful in figuring out who you are talking about. Too many names come to mind! Perhaps if you add party and state afterward it would clear things up a bit! ;0

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

How do you define smug, arrogant, and condescending?

“I did not set a red line. The world set a red line”.

The “world” hears this and immediately knows what it is dealing with – a disingenuous weak weasel.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Local talk radio has an idiot on now.

Conservatives are hypocrites for not backing the thin-skinned rat. He’s like our brother and we have to back him up right or wrong. It’s all about protecting the Presidency.
How stupid.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Press conference over.

WisRich on September 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Taking gas from reporters and their biting questions, I’m surprised he didn’t end it sooner and strut off in a huff.

Obama: I didn’t draw that red line. Somebody else did that.

Such a clown.

petefrt on September 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM

McCain not supporting the resolution

cmsinaz on September 4, 2013 at 10:02 AM

The “world” hears this and immediately knows what it is dealing with – a disingenuous weak weasel.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Just heard the thin-skinned rat’s comments in Stockholm. His credibility isn’t on the line, the world’s credibility is on the line.

Disingenuous weak weasel doesn’t begin to describe how much this isn’t like the kind of global leadership that is supposed to come with the American Presidency.

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM

And another post goes to moderation for unknown reasons.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Easy. Signature filter.

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 10:07 AM

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I have no problem with planning for contingencies. The point is that the US entertained the possible use of chemical weapons AFTER ‘the world had drawn a red-line’ on their use following WWI. No, they were not used, but they were on the drawing board if the need arrived.

Would that have made the US ‘Hitler’ or ‘Syria’s Hitler’? Undoubtedly, even the thought that they were contemplated would cause the same that call Truman a ‘war criminal’ now to have done the same.

Also, as I indicated with the use of Napalm, etc, it is sort of rich for the US to now flip out over the use of sarin gas, which, of course, I’m not defending.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Happy Nomad on September 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Senator Senile a/k/a Senator John Insane a/k/a as the owner of the boots that Senator Scarlett licks.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Just heard the thin-skinned rat’s comments in Stockholm. His credibility isn’t on the line, the world’s credibility is on the line.

Classic case of Obama projecting.

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Not to worry, RWM, we are on the same page. One may be a tenor, the other an alto or baritone…but on the same page nonetheless.

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Obama – ‘I didn’t set a red line….’

He’s still trying to walk back out of the corner he painted himself into – unable to either admit a mistake, or advocate steps that go beyond the merely ‘symbolic’, ‘a shot across their bows’, and ‘not decisive or achieve regime change’.

Furthermore, by whinging about his own words, and then petulantly tossing down a ‘red line’ at the international community (ie EU / NATO) for not supporting him, only further demonstrates to our friends, allies, and enemies that he is still feckless and weak.

This President cannot lead if his life depended on it – and all he can do, as opposed to accept responsibility for his words / actions, is point the finger elsewhere.

It’s past time for this utter and complete failure to stop thinking about himself and the political implications of his fundamental missteps regarding foreign policy – and actually lead.

But that’s not in his nature. He cannot admit a mistake being the narcissist he is.

How is that hopey changey thingy working out? Badly. Very badly.

Athos on September 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM

“Red Line” , sheesh, that chemical weapons constraint was a hypothetical composite… Like my college girlfriend- “O”

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Anyone following Matt Drudge on Twitter?

Matt Drudge Tweets! “Why Would Anyone Vote Republican”? – See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/matt-drudge-tweets-why-would-anyone-vote-republican/#sthash.FAKa2qVR.dpuf

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/matt-drudge-tweets-why-would-anyone-vote-republican/

LOL @ Matt!

bluefox on September 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Not really trying anymore, are you?

coldwarrior on September 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Sure it is.

All the bigoted hate filled troll is ever trying to do is troll.

When it is not unambiguously, obviously, and directly trolling it is trying to arrogantly assert its superiority, which is just another way of trolling.

In this case all the simpleton has is “Bush did it, too! And that makes you guys hypocrites”.

As trolls do, it only selectively replies to comments, and ignores all comments and responses that point out how much different the situation with Iran in 2003 was from the situation with Syria in 2013.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM

with Iran Iraq in 2003

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Syrian jihadists fire gas cylinders at hospital and other targets, “with Allah’s permission”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lLP-F9XbNg#t=29

Let me get this straight…we are helping these people?

nazo311 on September 4, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Who here believes that Obama would take every measure possible to put down a Tea Party/libertarian/Conservative/’Leave Me Alone’ Independent Bloc if they all arose and put 127,875,000 (the equivalent of what the Egyptians did 33m out of an 80m population) in the streets for days or months? He’d do it for 33m.

Peace Prize be damned.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

James Buchanan’s 150+ year record of being the worst President in the history of the United States is in real danger of being overtaken by Barack Obama.

His domestic policy agenda is a disaster.
His Administration is one of the most corrupt, overtly political, and operates counter to the constitution in the history of the US.

And we are now seeing that his foreign policy is vapid, feckless, and narcissistic. He has a fundamentally fubar view towards foreign policy that has little relationship with reality. He has empowered and encouraged our enemies while pissing off our allies and friends. He has proven to the world what we’ve already known – everything he says has a time limit on it – and is always subject for revision and spin. Politics trump everything….and everything is about the cult of his (flawed) character.

His global point of view matches doesn’t match that of our allies or friends, but that of our enemies. I really wonder who despises this country and what it stands for more – the President and his fellow rabid Jacobin/Progressives or Russia/China/Islamofascists?

How many are going to die because of this President’s incompetence?

Athos on September 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Does anyone else here miss George W. Bush, I do.

SC.Charlie on September 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Assad army is already reduced to a half or even a third of its original strength. Two weeks of massive air campaign against Assad fire power (air force, big missiles, tanks divisions, and artillery divisions) is enough to greatly destabilize him.

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Dem O cannot be trusted nor can his Dem staffers, Kerry and Hagel. NO, NO, NO.

This from someone who really believes in the greatness of America and one who wants the best for all but frankly, the weakness in this Dem president is unprecedented. Until you identify what you want to do, specifically, you will fail.

Our soldiers have been stressed beyond comprehension. I simply don’t believe there will be no ground troops. That statement is false.

God help us. Maybe “guide” would be much better.

MN J on September 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I agree that, if you’re going to fight a war, few parameters should be set in advsnce–especially time parameters-giving the enemy a victory by allowing these time parameters to expire.

Here, however, we have a thin-skinned incompetent who wants to go to war over trifles–some dictator called his “red line” bluff.\

As for going to war for “human rights violations” (especially since we are not 100% sure the violations were committed by Assad or by Al Qaeda), in lieu of national security, is insanity.

1 If we pitched cruised missiles into every country which violated human rights, we’d be fighting over 80 wars simultaneously.
2 You may notice that “human rights violators” we pick fights with are small, weak countries incapable of significant retaliation–therefore we do so for political gain and without fear of holocaustic repercussions–or else we’d be equally justified in pitching cruise missiles into China or Russia!!!!

MaiDee on September 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM

No boots on the ground……….BS, we have had Special Forces on the ground for months. Are they wearing slippers?

David in ATL on September 4, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Assad army is already reduced to a half or even a third of its original strength. Two weeks of massive air campaign against Assad fire power (air force, big missiles, tanks divisions, and artillery divisions) is enough to greatly destabilize him.

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I give up. Which Iranian leader said that?

BigAlSouth on September 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM

And another post goes to moderation for unknown reasons.

farsighted on September 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

The reason was the hyphenated word starting with pin.

slickwillie2001 on September 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM

This is Kabuki. Once Congress gives Obama the OK to wage war, he’s the Commander In Chief, Congress can’t tell him how to wage a war. That much is clear from the Constitution.

I don’t know if the Senate is full of idiots or they think the country is.

Socratease on September 4, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Will ANYONE I. The lsm call him out on this lie?

Seriously, they been admitting that this ‘rhetoric’ is a cause….

Man up LSM
Geez

Pretty sad when the European press corps actually asks the real questions

cmsinaz on September 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Corker and Menendez . . . wonderful.

rplat on September 4, 2013 at 11:39 AM

is enough to greatly destabilize him.

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Then what, genius?

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 12:23 PM

I don’t know if the Senate is full of idiots or they think the country is.

Socratease on September 4, 2013 at 11:22 AM

For the most part, both are true.

I wonder who holds the other in more contempt? The political leadership towards the people, or the people towards our political leadership.

Athos on September 4, 2013 at 12:24 PM

The Republican Party is horrible. I have zero representation.

alanstern on September 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM

The Republican Party is horrible. I have zero representation.

alanstern on September 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Stay home or vote a third party… That will teach the Republicans…

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

This President cannot lead if his life depended on it

Athos on September 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM

It isn’t his life he’s playing with. He’s going to get people killed just so he can save face. And the majority of Americans will go along with it, just as they will be told to do.

Again.

runawayyyy on September 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The Republican Party is horrible. I have zero representation.

alanstern on September 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Stay home or vote a third party… That will teach the Republicans…

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Congrats. You’re the reason the 2012 election was lost. Well that and rampant voter fraud.

nazo311 on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

IF the US fires ONE weapon into Syria, an endless line of dead bodies will be placed on TV as casualties of that attack!

I wonder if Kerry will then compare his actions to Ghengis Kahn?

Freddy on September 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Congrats. You’re the reason the 2012 election was lost. Well that and rampant voter fraud.

nazo311 on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Don’t forget the constantly wobbling candidate named Romney. I still have no idea what he would be doing had he won. I suspect he would be implementing Obamacare and complaining how he had to as the US Senate was controlled by Democrats.

Freddy on September 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Congrats. You’re the reason the 2012 election was lost. Well that and rampant voter fraud.

nazo311 on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I was sarcastic… However and sadly this is now a very common attitude among conservatives or so called conservatives…

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM

How many are going to die because of this President’s incompetence?

Athos on September 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Can we please stop letting him off the hook by saying he’s merely incompetent? I don’t believe incompetence has a darned thing to do with it, other than the Republican’s who go along with it. He’s not incompetent; he’s EVIL and doing exactly what he needs to do to attain his objectives, one being the complete destruction of the USofA we have known and loved, but which he has HATED his entire life.

pannw on September 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I was sarcastic… However and sadly this is now a very common attitude among conservatives or so called conservatives…

mnjg on September 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Translation, conservatives who actually take their principles seriously.

ebrown2 on September 4, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Congrats. You’re the reason the 2012 election was lost. Well that and rampant voter fraud.

nazo311 on September 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Fraud that the establishment Republicans rolled over and showed their belly on. What’s the use of voting for cowardly curs who won’t fight for themselves?

ebrown2 on September 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Yes, ground troops is in there.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Can we please stop letting him off the hook by saying he’s merely incompetent? I don’t believe incompetence has a darned thing to do with it, other than the Republican’s who go along with it. He’s not incompetent; he’s EVIL and doing exactly what he needs to do to attain his objectives, one being the complete destruction of the USofA we have known and loved, but which he has HATED his entire life.

pannw on September 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM

He’s incompetent only if you judge him as a traditional politician.

Judged as an America-hating freedom-destroyer, he’s a smashing SUCCESS.

ebrown2 on September 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM

“What happens if Assad sends a division over the Golan Heights, or Hezbollah invades Israel from Lebanon in retaliation?

We might need to put boots on the ground in a hurry in those cases”

While I appreciate Ed’s zeal, and it is from a good place, Israel has never requested and will never request American boots on the ground to defend our country. We’ll fight and defeat Hezbollah or Assad if they so chose to tango. We do need and appreciate to our core America’s support, especially as a lone voice of defense with us internationally. But we do not require rapid or even long term buildup deployments like Kuwait, the Saudis have, etc. I have the deepest respect for Ed, it’s a mistake to use us a hypothetical example for possible need of boots on the ground.

saus on September 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM

You know…if I didn’t know better (maybe that is the wrong phrase) I would think that Obama is implementing AlQaeda’s caliphate. Think about this for a minute. He has been rude and terrible to Israel. He has kissed up to our enemies and dissed our allies. The Muslims want the little satin gone and what better way then for Obama to kill two birds with one stone. Attack Syria and remember, we don’t know who gassed who, Iran gets ticked off, Hezbellah (sp) attacks Israel in retaliation and then the rest of our enemies attack the United States. That way Obama gets rid of this country and Israel…all the while Johnny McCain and Lindsey Graham wave the American Flag to get it done

Carolynr on September 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

He’s a corker, ain’t he? This is truly embarrassing for America, being duped and hustled into a lose-lose fight. If election night got your attention about how bad things are in the nation as a whole, this should make you reach for a benzo or two…. Why can’t I wake up???
Randy

williars on September 4, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Long experience should teach us that Democrats say the opposite of what they believe.

So they plan this to be an never ending war that will keep them in power for decades.

What is Obama trying to distract us from? I bet there is something.

petunia on September 5, 2013 at 12:29 AM

saus on September 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM

In turn, you should know, that to most Americans, Israel is the only thing of value in the Middle East,(maybe the pyramids) and we would do all we could to help.

petunia on September 5, 2013 at 12:31 AM

So, no boots on the ground … but maybe sandals on the soil, or sneakers on the sand.

Was the Senate ever more treacherous?

virgo on September 5, 2013 at 1:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2