Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
9/23/2020 3:47:02 PM
Posted: 9/6/2013 11:35:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2013 11:36:28 AM EDT by kudzu630]
So I emailed my objection to a useless strike on Syria and this happened

Thank you for contacting me with regard to the President's request for an authorization to use military force in Syria. I appreciate your interest in this issue, and your views are important to me. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, on which I sit, recently called Members back from recess to hold a hearing on the worsening situation in Syria and its implications for U.S. national security interests and those of our allies in the region.

The United States has exercised great caution with regard to intervening in Syria during the past two and a half years as civil protests against the regime of Bashar al-Assad have turned violent and escalated into outright civil war. While the U.S. has worked to identify and support democratic movements that evolved from the Arab Spring, which is no easy task given the various ethnic and sectarian interests, the President has made clear repeatedly that his goal is to get the United States out of wars in the Middle East, not to start new ones.

Understandably there is war weariness not only in Congress but also among the American people because of the physical and emotional scars that linger from the shoddy evidence of so-called weapons of mass destruction that led to the war in Iraq. That military intervention ultimately spiraled into the U.S. being entangled in two wars spanning the past decade and costing the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. troops. However, we must be careful to separate the situation in Iraq with what we and the international community are facing today in Syria.

The Administration has done a very careful and credible job of collecting and presenting evidence to ensure it is not repeating the mistakes of Iraq. In fact, this President, unlike most presidents since World War II, has actually come to Congress as a partner and asked us on behalf of the country to respond to the Assad regime's heinous act of using chemical weapons to attack innocent civilians. I believe the Administration has presented a strong case to Congress for taking limited action, and I hope we can find a way to try to cooperate and work with the President to further the interests of national security. I am encouraged by supportive comments from the bipartisan leadership of both the House and Senate in recent days, and I look forward to continuing this debate.

In briefings for Members of Congress, the Administration has presented a preponderance of evidence, collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and our international partners, showing that the Assad regime did unleash chemical weapons on its own people in rebel-occupied communities, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including more than 400 children. Though acknowledging the deplorableness of these attacks, some question whether the U.S. truly has an interest or responsibility to respond to these shameful acts.  

As the President has said, the use of chemical weapons crosses a "red line," not just by U.S. standards but by international law. Since the late 19th century, the international community has consistently opposed the use of chemical weapons because of the abhorrent death and destruction they can produce. That norm was ratified by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which even Syria itself signed in 1968. The U.S. and 188 other countries, comprising 98% of the world's population, are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which became effective in 1997 and prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons. I would note that five nations have not signed that agreement, including Syria and North Korea, which also has a stockpile of chemical weapons. Congress already is on record, through the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, noting that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of America.

Congress now has to decide whether we should let this heinous act of the Assad regime go unchallenged or whether to respond on a limited basis, a targeted basis, to send a message that use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. We must weigh not only the consequences of taking action but also the consequences of inaction. The appropriate analogies to be made in this case are Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and Rwanda. There are real consequences for doing nothing with respect to the message that would send about America's resolve to rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran and other bad actors in the region. Furthermore, it could create enormous risk for allies like Israel, Turkey, Jordan and others.

If any action is to be taken, it must be limited in scope to provide the American people with the confidence that we will not repeat mistakes of the past. Some of us are old enough to remember the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which ultimately allowed for much wider engagement of U.S. troops in Southeast Asia than was contemplated by Congress or the American people. I and many of my colleagues believe the Administration's draft resolution for the authorization of military force in Syria was similarly too broad. However, the President has made clear that no one is talking about deploying troops to Syria. No one is talking about invading Syria. No one is talking about intervening in the civil war in Syria. What's been discussed is a limited strike, a retaliatory strike, as a deterrent to ensure the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians is not repeated.

To reflect that intent and address concerns from constituents like you, I have been working with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland on an amended resolution that codifies the principle that no ground troops would be deployed. Our resolution also limits the President's authority to a single round of strikes unless Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government should use chemical weapons again. It includes a "use-it-or-lose-it" clause to limit this authority to use military force to 60 days, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. And our alternative more narrowly defines the goal of any operation to preventing further use of chemical weapons and not leaving America's commitment open ended.

Underscoring that this situation has ramifications for the national security interests of not only America but also the rest of the international community, a coalition of U.S. allies released a statement of support for U.S. action following the recent G-20 summit in Russia. In part, it read, "We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack [in Syria] .. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons .. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons." That statement was issued by representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
As your representative in Congress, it is important to know my constituents' thoughts and concerns, so I can best represent their interests. I will continue to monitor this situation closely and will keep your views in mind as this debate continues. Once again, thank you for expressing your concern on this very important issue. I appreciate hearing from you. For more information on my views on other issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://connolly.house.gov. I also encourage you to visit the website to sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly
Member of Congress
11th District, Virginia


You can also stay in touch with me through:

Facebook

RSS Feed

YouTube
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 12:09:34 PM EDT
A collection of worthless bromides from a hack politician. My douchebag congressman voted against the Iraq resolution back in 2002 but apparently with a Democrat in the White House he has no problem with this.
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 12:18:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2013 12:19:00 PM EDT by MaverickH1]
Typical.  Dems crying out that we're bound by international law to ACT, as if our own country's laws don't count.

/sigh
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 1:44:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2013 1:50:54 PM EDT by Sandlewood_3]
Not just dems.  The honorable Mr. Cantor is all for it too.  He hasnt even done me the favor of replying, but is on the news saying he is.

We will actually break international law if we attack.  Syria did not sign the treaty and breaking that kind of treaty does not give us legal standing to go to war.  We would need to be attacked, threatened with a attack or or ally attacked.  The UN could also authorize a use of force.  None of those conditions exist today.
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 3:19:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sandlewood_3:
Not just dems.  The honorable Mr. Cantor is all for it too.  He hasnt even done me the favor of replying, but is on the news saying he is.

We will actually break international law if we attack.  Syria did not sign the treaty and breaking that kind of treaty does not give us legal standing to go to war.  We would need to be attacked, threatened with a attack or or ally attacked.  The UN could also authorize a use of force.  None of those conditions exist today.
View Quote


So true.  I find great irony in the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan were on stronger legal footing than the current debacle we're about to engage in.

All this is about is trying to save face for the current administration.  There's no strategy behind it nor was there any though put into it until the "red line" was crossed.  Obama knew this was going to go bad, so he's shifting the buck to congress and will blame them for whatever transpires.  Further, the delay gives asad time to move his forces, so whatever we do is ineffective precisely because we cannot topple him otherwise the rebels (i.e. al qaeda and other extremists) get the remainder of asads chem weapons.

This is a goat screw of the highest magnitude.  And a goat screw perfectly timed to distract from the debt ceiling debate, affordable care act implementation and a host of other issues....

that said, I haven't received responses back from Kaine, Warner or Moran yet.  However, Moran is clearly on board with whatever the president is up to.  
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 5:53:40 PM EDT
Cantor should be primaried.
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 6:13:00 PM EDT
Damn right.
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 9:24:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bulldog1967:
Cantor should be primaried.
View Quote

Yep, That a$$ needs to go!!!
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 9:36:33 PM EDT

Dear SGT 21BoomCBTENGR

Throughout my time in Congress, my key priority has been to protect and defend the United States of America. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I have been one of the strongest advocates for a robust national defense. However, after reviewing the ongoing situation in Syria closely, I have decided that I am strongly opposed to authorizing American military intervention. Committing American resources to a new conflict that may not be vital to our national interest would be irresponsible, especially at a time when our Armed Services are facing serious readiness shortfalls and devastating sequestration cuts.

Like during the conflict in Libya in 2011, I have insisted from the beginning that the President must seek authority from Congress for any military action in Syria. On August 28th, 2013 I was proud to join a bipartisan group of 115 Members in sending a letter to President Obama demanding that he cease any planned use of military force in Syria without congressional authorization. I was pleased the President ultimately chose to abide by the Constitution and the request from Members to seek congressional authorization to use military force in Syria. However, because he still insists he does not ultimately need authority from Congress to take the Nation to war, I will continue to closely watch the President's actions as the debate regarding Syria continues.

I also find it concerning that the President is again seeking to use military power even while he has accepted nearly a trillion dollars in cuts from our national defense over the last four years. The President’s continued willingness to use our military without ensuring that it is properly funded should alarm all who view the maintenance of unparalleled American military power as a principal Constitutional duty of our Commander-in-Chief.

While you can be assured I will continue to advocate for a strong national defense, I believe we must be especially cautious of the unintended consequences of embroiling ourselves in the Syrian conflict. Therefore, I cannot support any action that could potentially lock the United States into a foreign entanglement with no clear objective or readily accessible end goals. With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,



J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress

My congressmans better than yours, nanny nanny boo boo.
Link Posted: 9/6/2013 11:38:06 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bulldog1967:
Cantor should be primaried.
View Quote


I agree. I thought he was one of the if not "good" guys one of the better guys. He has been proving that he is one of the bad guys here lately.

I sent an e-mail to my Congress critter Scott Rigell and while he hassnt responded he has said that he will not support and action in Syrian and has been making the Sunday AM talk show rounds and building a case for obama to bring it to a vote at least.

I wassnt so sure about him at first either but im mostly happy with his performance (so far). I think the rumors the GOA was spreading about him being not so pro-gun are false. His record says otherwise (so far).
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 1:11:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2013 2:36:18 AM EDT by ebern220]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
I was pleased the President ultimately chose to abide by the Constitution and the request from Members to seek congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.
View Quote


The sticky situation is the War Powers Resolution also says you do not need Congressional approval to go after states housing terrorism.  You have Hezbollah on Assad's side, and numerous organizations on the rebel side.  Looks like a situation we don't want to be in, deciding the lesser of two evils.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 2:47:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ebern220:


The sticky situation is the War Powers Resolution also says you do not need Congressional approval to go after states housing terrorism.  You have Hezbollah on Assad's side, and numerous organizations on the rebel side.  Looks like a situation we don't want to be in, deciding the lesser of two evils.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ebern220:
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
I was pleased the President ultimately chose to abide by the Constitution and the request from Members to seek congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.


The sticky situation is the War Powers Resolution also says you do not need Congressional approval to go after states housing terrorism.  You have Hezbollah on Assad's side, and numerous organizations on the rebel side.  Looks like a situation we don't want to be in, deciding the lesser of two evils.


It says no such thing.  It says the president can order he military into action with congressional authorization or  "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Exactly how does states harboringnterrorism that's NOT an immediate and direct threat to us qualify?  It doesn't.  And when was the last time Hezbollah directly attacked America? Or Syria in general?  There's no sticky situation about it,  this is not America's torch to carry.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 3:23:18 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KennyW1983:


I agree. I thought he was one of the if not "good" guys one of the better guys. He has been proving that he is one of the bad guys here lately.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KennyW1983:
Originally Posted By bulldog1967:
Cantor should be primaried.


I agree. I thought he was one of the if not "good" guys one of the better guys. He has been proving that he is one of the bad guys here lately.




When they think that they are "safe" from election repercussions is when they show you their true colors.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 3:41:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2013 3:45:17 AM EDT by ebern220]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:


It says no such thing.  It says the president can order he military into action with congressional authorization or  "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Exactly how does states harboringnterrorism that's NOT an immediate and direct threat to us qualify?  It doesn't.  And when was the last time Hezbollah directly attacked America? Or Syria in general?  There's no sticky situation about it,  this is not America's torch to carry.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By ebern220:
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
I was pleased the President ultimately chose to abide by the Constitution and the request from Members to seek congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.


The sticky situation is the War Powers Resolution also says you do not need Congressional approval to go after states housing terrorism.  You have Hezbollah on Assad's side, and numerous organizations on the rebel side.  Looks like a situation we don't want to be in, deciding the lesser of two evils.


It says no such thing.  It says the president can order he military into action with congressional authorization or  "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Exactly how does states harboringnterrorism that's NOT an immediate and direct threat to us qualify?  It doesn't.  And when was the last time Hezbollah directly attacked America? Or Syria in general?  There's no sticky situation about it,  this is not America's torch to carry.



http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

       The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Not saying this should be used in this instance, just pointing out the facts as they are.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 6:40:24 AM EDT
I would say that falls under Pub 107-40 moreso than the war powers resolution, which gave a much broader authorization to the president by congress.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 7:55:29 AM EDT
I agree that by US law the president could attack.  He could not continue the attack with out congressional authorization.   Hell by the anti terror law you quote above we might have to turn around and bomb ourselves.  We would be helping al queda since they are currently fighting the syrian regime.  

My statement was that we have no basis in international law to attack.
Link Posted: 9/7/2013 8:50:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sandlewood_3:
I agree that by US law the president could attack.  He could not continue the attack with out congressional authorization.   Hell by the anti terror law you quote above we might have to turn around and bomb ourselves.  We would be helping al queda since they are currently fighting the syrian regime.  

My statement was that we have no basis in international law to attack.
View Quote


Well, realistically as a sovereign country we can attack anyone we want.  There may be international consequences but we can.
Link Posted: 9/10/2013 8:01:20 AM EDT
I got the exact same form letter of Obungo administration talking points from the Con-man.  Worthless sack of shit.
Link Posted: 9/11/2013 3:58:46 PM EDT
obama's lackey timmy 'the taint licker" kaine follows the boss' line.

Dear Mr. W:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the Senate vote on limited military action to punish Syria's use of chemical weapons against civilians.  This is a difficult issue and an important one.

First, I applaud President Obama for bringing the matter to Congress for a vote.  Given a recent history where many Presidents have acted to initiate military action without legislative approval, I have been urging President Obama and his Administration to bring Congress fully into these decisions.  We are stronger in any military action when the political leadership is united and Congress must go on record on a decision as serious as this.

Second, after significant classified and unclassified briefings, discussion with military and foreign policy experts, conversation with Virginians, and much thought, I voted in favor of authorizing limited military action.  It has a specific purpose - to punish the Assad government for its use of chemical weapons and strongly deter any future use.  The authorization is limited in scope and time, guarantees that no American troops will be deployed inside Syria for combat operations, and requires all diplomatic options to be exhausted before the commencement of any military strikes. These actions have helped pressure Assad to consider relinquishing his chemical weapons stockpile to international control. I welcome this development and will continue to carefully examine this and any other credible offers presented by the Russians and Syrians.

I voted for the authorization for a simple reason (FBHO told me to) - there has been an international consensus against chemical weapons use since 1925 that has been followed in a near universal manner.  The prohibition has protected civilians, as well as American servicemembers who have fought in Europe, the Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan without the threat of chemical weapons being used against them.  If we allow Assad's use of chemical weapons to kill combatants in a civil war and also innocent civilians, including hundreds of women and children, we can be guaranteed that he will do it again.  He might use them against larger groups of civilians in Syria.  Or he might use them against neighboring countries - Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon - with significant populations of American citizens and servicemembers.  Unless we act to stop him now, we will send the message to other tyrants that using chemical weapons--is acceptable.  That message jeopardizes the lives of our servicemembers in combat both today and in the future. It's in our national security interest to defend the principle that has protected them from these inhumane weapons for nearly 90 years.

I believe that acting now to uphold the prohibition against chemical weapons will make us safer and avoid larger challenges in the future.  I recognize the risk this poses, but I believe the risks of inaction are greater.  If America leads, we will have partners.  But if we do nothing, I am not sure that any nation will stand up against this horrific crime.  I find the gassing of innocent men, women, and children intolerable, and believe there must be a consequence.

Once again, I appreciate your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Signature

Tim Kaine
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 1:26:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Dear SGT 21BoomCBTENGR

Throughout my time in Congress, my key priority has been to protect and defend the United States of America. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I have been one of the strongest advocates for a robust national defense. However, after reviewing the ongoing situation in Syria closely, I have decided that I am strongly opposed to authorizing American military intervention. Committing American resources to a new conflict that may not be vital to our national interest would be irresponsible, especially at a time when our Armed Services are facing serious readiness shortfalls and devastating sequestration cuts.

Like during the conflict in Libya in 2011, I have insisted from the beginning that the President must seek authority from Congress for any military action in Syria. On August 28th, 2013 I was proud to join a bipartisan group of 115 Members in sending a letter to President Obama demanding that he cease any planned use of military force in Syria without congressional authorization. I was pleased the President ultimately chose to abide by the Constitution and the request from Members to seek congressional authorization to use military force in Syria. However, because he still insists he does not ultimately need authority from Congress to take the Nation to war, I will continue to closely watch the President's actions as the debate regarding Syria continues.

I also find it concerning that the President is again seeking to use military power even while he has accepted nearly a trillion dollars in cuts from our national defense over the last four years. The President’s continued willingness to use our military without ensuring that it is properly funded should alarm all who view the maintenance of unparalleled American military power as a principal Constitutional duty of our Commander-in-Chief.

While you can be assured I will continue to advocate for a strong national defense, I believe we must be especially cautious of the unintended consequences of embroiling ourselves in the Syrian conflict. Therefore, I cannot support any action that could potentially lock the United States into a foreign entanglement with no clear objective or readily accessible end goals. With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,



J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress

My congressmans better than yours, nanny nanny boo boo.
View Quote



We have the same congressman
Top Top