Showing posts with label Red Line. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Red Line. Show all posts
Friday, September 6, 2013
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Pelosi and Boenher will never call the vote. The votes cannot be bought. Obama will get a Senate vote, claim victory, then attack.
This is distinctly different from what happened in Iraq in a couple of respects. First and foremost, evidence, the intelligence, did not support the threat that was being described by the Bush Administration at the time. I was a senior Democrat on the Intelligence committee, and was one who received all of the documents—by law, they must show us what the documentation is. The evidence did not support the threat.
The intelligence this time does support the facts: that the Bashar Assad regime is responsible for the chemical weapons attack on [his] own people. Any violation of human rights, all of the killings that went on, really challenged the conscience of the world. But when you use a weapon of mass destruction against your own people … you not only challenge the conscience of the world, you challenge the credibility of the world leadership.
Is there lingering fatigue from Iraq?
The country is weary of war. There is absolutely no question about that. My caucus is a reflection of our constituents and they are weary of war. They do not want involvement. And that’s why we weren’t involved even though 100,000 people have been killed already in the conflict in Syria.
What the Bush administration was asking the country to do on the basis of a false premise was to go to war. This isn’t about going to war. This is about a limited, tailored strike, of short duration, for a purpose, which is the use of weapons of mass destruction.
If this is approved, does it set a precedent?
We’re talking about a highly unusual event…Hopefully, if this does happen, it will be a message to everyone—the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Syrians, anyone who would use a WMD or threaten to use one—that that’s probably not a good idea.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Would an attack on Syria without the UN, make America a "war criminal?"
The U.S. and France have blamed Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime for the alleged Aug. 21 attack and are considering military action in response. Such a strike would almost certainly occur without the approval of the Security Council, where Russia and China have consistently used their veto power to block action against Assad's regime. The Obama administration argues that a chemical weapons attack cannot go unpunished because of the council's inaction.
"As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security," Ban said at a news conference. "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.
He also warned that a military strike against Syria could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in a crisis that has already killed more than 100,000 people.
"I take note of the argument for action to prevent a future use of chemical weapons. At the same time, we must consider the impact of any punitive measure on efforts to prevent further bloodshed and facilitate the political resolution of the conflict," Ban said.
President Barack Obama received key support from leaders in Congress on Tuesday for a potential strike.
More: Star Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
