Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[jimmy olsen]

Blatantly false

Anyways, on the topic of Syria
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Sep-07/230362-hezbollah-iran-and-syria-prepare-for-counterattack.ashx#ixzz2e9v5M5YE

BEIRUT: Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have set up a joint military operations room to coordinate closely in the event of a U.S. strike on Syria, with Hezbollah mobilizing "tens of thousands" of fighters, senior political and diplomatic sources told The Daily Star Friday.

Even though the U.S. has so far succeeded in keeping the "axis of the resistance" guessing about the targets and scope of the strike, the sources said, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have geared up for the worst-case scenarios.

While nearly every aspect of the expected U.S.-led strike remains in flux, the three players have agreed on a specific course of action if American missiles smash into Syrian territory.

Hezbollah has even called up "tens of thousands" of fighters and reservists in anticipation of the strike, according to political sources.

"Iran, Syria and Hezbollah don't have a clear picture about what Americans have planned," said one diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous. "But those countries too are prepared for various scenarios."

The sources said that Iran and Hezbollah would throw their weight and military skills behind President Bashar Assad if the strike presented a serious threat to the regime or would significantly weaken the Syrian army, the regime's backbone.

"Short of that," one diplomat said, "Hezbollah and Iran are unlikely to be involved."

The diplomatic sources explained that Iran and Hezbollah considered the targeting of key Syrian army posts, military airfields and strategic weapons depots – including long range missiles – a direct threat to Assad's rule and a reason to intervene.

While Syria and Hezbollah have mobilized forces, the sources said the Iranians have begun to prepare themselves for the likelihood that they will launch "strategic missiles" in response.

"The aim of the move was to demonstrate to the United States that Iran was serious," the diplomat said.

Diplomatic and political sources also revealed Syria too has a bank of targets to hit in response to any U.S. attacks, namely in Israel as well as U.S. military bases in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan.

The alliance among Syria, Iran and Hezbollah took shape in the 1990s and despite several attempts to fracture it has so far proven to be resilient.

The alliance is frowned upon by Israel and many Arab countries, which describe it as sectarian and accuse the two countries and Hezbollah of looking to form a "Shiite crescent," comprising Middle East countries – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran – where the majority of people are Shiite or where there is a sizeable Shiite minority.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have long refuted the accusations, saying their alliance is solely meant to counter Israel and support the rights and interests of the Palestinians.

But coordination among the three key regional players has never been interrupted even before the unrest in Syria started in March 2011.

The highest-profile tripartite meeting so far took place in February 2010 when Assad, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held talks in Damascus.

Another key event came in April 2013, almost two years into the Syria war, when Nasrallah paid a visit to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Nasrallah has vowed unequivocal support for Assad in the face of a rebellion by what he dubbed "takfiri groups," arguing that the family offered political and logistical support to his group in their struggle to liberate Lebanese territories from Israeli occupation and later on during the 2006 war.

Hezbollah fighters have supported Assad troops at many instances in the past two years, securing a triumphant victory for the Syrian Army against rebel groups in the town of Qusair, just kilometers away from the Lebanese border.

Despite domestic and international chiding for its involvement in the Syrian quagmire, Hezbollah seems unwilling to pull out and plans to fight alongside the regime and make use of its full fighting capacity in case Syria comes under attack.

Political sources said the party put on alert "tens of thousands" of fighters and reservists – part timers and full-timers – in anticipation of a U.S. strike.

The sources said ever since August 2006, when a 34-day war with Israel concluded, Hezbollah has launched a large-scale operation to take on new recruits and has organized training camps during the summer for thousands of young people in south Lebanon and the Baalbek and Hermel regions in the northern Bekaa Valley.

"Everyone in Hezbollah who has been trained to use weapons has been put on high alert," one political source explained. "The party is ready for all eventualities."

[Ideologue]

Other than what an instructive example it is, I don't care about Spain.  No offense, El Larcho, Iorm.

You're Spanish?

About as much as the Syrian guys mentioned, yeah.

[Ideologue]

I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.

Yes, but that's your answer to everything.

Well, except the "still with Tim" part. 

I have topics that I am interested in.

[Razgovory]

Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?

It was different then. You weren't there, man.

Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.

No shit.

So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have  to face another President resign or face impeachment?

[DGuller]

I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria:  he still doesn't give a shit.

And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?

Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.

On the internet they're not required.

I would never make such a comment in real life.

Well, yeah, 'cause in real life you got no one to talk to.

That was uncalled for, IMO. 

[jimmy olsen]

That was uncalled for, IMO. 

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, Tim has lots of underage girls he could be talking to. 

[11B4V]

Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?

It was different then. You weren't there, man.

Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.

No shit.

So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have  to face another President resign or face impeachment?

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock 24 days and counting. 

[Razgovory]

If all else fails then maybe we can sent Ollie North over there.  Maybe his Iranian friends will remember him.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with Todd. If Obama's beaten in the House, the Obama administration is basically through barring a miraculous capture of the House in '14 (not happening). Are the Dems really willing to throw away the next three years by helping the Tea Party vote this down?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20357154-first-thoughts-obamas-tough-challenge-ahead?lite

First Thoughts: Obama's tough challenge ahead

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

President Obama responds to NBC News' Chuck Todd's question about whether or not he asked for an expanded list of targets in Syria, saying, "That report is inaccurate ... what we have consistently talked about is something limited and proportionate that would degrade Assad's capabilities."

*** Obama's tough challenge ahead: What started out as the Obama White House's promising start to win Capitol Hill support for military strikes in Syria (getting congressional leaders like John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi on board, as well as the pro-Israel group AIPAC) has hit a brick wall of opposition. An unusual alliance of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans has come out against intervention; the polls show that the public is deeply skeptical about military action; and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who voted for authorization out of committee, faced tough questions at an Arizona town hall yesterday. What's more, President Obama went into the G-20 without additional support for intervention, and he leaves the G-20 without additional support. This all sets up a situation in which the Obama administration and its allies have 96 hours to change the momentum if they're going to get Congress to pass an authorization approving limited action in Syria. Does Obama address the nation next week to better sell this to the public and their representatives? (Only way he doesn't is if the White House abruptly decides Congress is a lost cause.) Does his challenge get easier -- or harder -- when most members actually return to Washington next week? (The White House hopes it gets easier.) Does the administration start making the argument to its members what might happen in the budget/debt-ceiling fights if the authorization goes down to defeat? (This is a semi-desperation move behind the scenes, but they may have no choice). We'll find out. But right now, the administration is losing.

President Obama says a majority of the G20 leaders believe Bashar al-Assad launched chemical weapons, but are divided on whether to use force in Syria without UN Security Council support.

*** What happens to Obama if this goes down: If the Obama administration loses, many might not realize the full-fledged political crisis the president will face. His congressional opposition will be more emboldened, if that was possible. (Any advantage the Democrats hold in the upcoming fiscal fights ahead could quickly disappear.) A year before the 2014 midterms, Democrats will start hitting the panic button with a wounded Democratic president in office. (If you've paid attention to politics over the past two decades, when the going gets tough, Democrats often jump ship.) And any lame-duck status for Obama would be expedited. (After all, a "no" vote by Congress would rebuke the nation's commander-in-chief.) Up until now, the first nine months of Obama's second term have been, well, a disappointment. Gun control was stopped in the Senate; immigration reform is stalled in the House; no progress has been achieved in the budget talks. So if you throw in Congress rebuking the president from taking military action in Syria -- something he has said is necessary -- that would be a huge political blow to Obama's political standing.

*** 96 hours to turn this thing around: Despite the administration's obvious challenge ahead, take all the whip counts with a grain of salt -- at least right now. There are too many undecided members, and remember that those "leaning" a particular way can change their minds. There is still time for Obama and his allies to turn this thing around. But here's something to consider: If it looks like a congressional authorization would go down to defeat, it might not reach the House floor. Why would members want to cast a vote on something that isn't going to pass? Interestingly, the problem the president faced at the G-20 is similar to the one he faces in Congress. Even with the folks who agree that Syria's regime needs to be punished, there just isn't the POLITICAL WILL to go out on that limb. Germany is no more there than member of Congress representing Staten Island. Call it Iraq War syndrome or whatever you want, but that's what's missing -- political will. Finally, the president has one additional challenge: convincing potential supporters of action that his middle ground approach (strikes without trying to alter the civil war) just doesn't come across as feasible. In hindsight, would the president's call for action be more credible if he had a clearer objective in mind (like Assad's removal or securing/capturing his chemical weapons stockpile)? Obviously, the military challenge to achieving those goals would be costly, but it seems the middle-ground military approach has become a tough sell.

[derspiess]

So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have  to face another President resign or face impeachment?

I dunno, Raz.  It was long ago.  So long ago...

[CountDeMoney]

Petraeus calls on Congress to back White House on Syria
By: Mike Allen and Jennifer Epstein
September 7, 2013 03:52 PM EDT

Retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, former CIA director under President Barack Obama, called strongly Saturday for Congress to back the White House on Syria, declaring that military action against the regime is "necessary" to deter "Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors."

"Failure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world," Petraeus said in a four-sentence statement provided to POLITICO.

With Congress set to return from summer break on Monday, Obama's request is in trouble in the Senate and on a path to an embarrassing loss in the House. He will sit for interviews Monday with six TV networks as he makes his case for military intervention in Syria ahead of an address to the nation on Tuesday.

In his years as U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus was regarded by many Republican lawmakers as a god on military matters.

So the imprimatur of the former four-star general could help Obama woo skeptical Republicans, many of whom say their districts are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention. The Petraeus statement follows endorsements of Obama's measure this week by Hillary Clinton, his first secretary of State; and Robert M. Gates, his first secretary of defense and a holdover from President George W. Bush.

The full text of Petraeus' statement: "I strongly support congressional approval of President Obama's request for authority to undertake military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad. Such action is necessary in order to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and to degrade the regime's overall military capabilities.

"Failure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world. Military action against the Syrian regime is, thus, necessary not just to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, but also to ensure that Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors never underestimate the United States' resolve to take necessary military action when other tools prove insufficient."

As part of a multi-pronged push to sell his plan to Congress and the public, Obama will tape interviews Monday afternoon with anchors from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News, the White House said. The interviews will air Monday evening.

The interviews will be conducted by ABC's Diane Sawyer, CBS's Scott Pelley, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Fox's Chris Wallace, NBC's Brian Williams and PBS's Gwen Ifill.

On Wednesday, Petraeus will give his first paid speech since resigning as CIA director in November. It'll be at Duke University and is titled, "America and the World: A Conversation with Gen. David Petraeus." Petraeus is working with six veterans' support groups, and is chairman of the newly created KKR Global Institute for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. He also is teaching this fall at the University of Southern California, and beginning Monday at the City University of New York.

[Camerus]

Why is this America's problem again?

[Eddie Teach]

Why is this America's problem again?

Failure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world. Military action against the Syrian regime is, thus, necessary not just to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, but also to ensure that Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors never underestimate the United States' resolve to take necessary military action when other tools prove insufficient."

It's a matter of face.

[Camerus]

I don't see it.