Congressman Alan Grayson was interviewed by Jeffrey Brown on the PBS News Hour last night about Syria, and what a great interview it was! Grayson, a Democrat, said constituents are 100-1 against the resolution authorizing a military attack on Syria.
You can watch the video or read the transcript online.
Grayson got right to his talking points.
First, it’s not our responsibility. It’s not our responsibility to act unilaterally. Secondly, it’s not going to do any good. It’s not going to change the regime. It’s not going to end the civil war. It’s not even going prevent a new strike and use of chemical warfare.
Third, it’s expensive, and, fourth, it’s dangerous. It could easily spin out of control.
Then came the next obvious question: But don’t we have to do something?
His reply:
Well, for instance, we could go to the U.N. We could go to NATO. We could go to the International Court of Justice if we were a member of it.
We could do all sorts of things to relieve the humanitarian suffering of the two million refugees in neighboring countries. We could conceivably arm the rebels. In fact, the president said he would arm the rebels three months ago. So far, not a single gun has been delivered. Not a single weapon of any kind has been delivered to the rebels, despite the fact the president said it three months ago. There’s all sorts of other alternatives that don’t involve sending missiles and bombs on a so-called humanitarian war.
Then the questions turned to the politics of prestige and “credibility.”
JEFFREY BROWN: What about the prestige, the credibility of the United States and of the president himself? Do you worry about that?
ALAN GRAYSON: We don’t — no, we don’t earn credibility by doing things that are stupid and counterproductive.
We have to get over that whole idea. And if it were a question of our credibility, then, in fact, I think our credibility is stronger by making wise choices here. And I’ll tell you this. We cannot go to war for the sake of anybody’s, how shall I say this, credibility.
Brown pursued then the point.
JEFFREY BROWN: And what happens to the president from your own party if he loses this vote? What are the implications for him, for his stature, for his ability to get things done in the rest of his term?
ALAN GRAYSON: With all due respect, that’s irrelevant. We cannot decide whether to go to war on the basis of those kind of considerations. It simply doesn’t matter.
In any case, it was a good interview, worth going back over.
Meanwhile, there have been numerous news reports that the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) will be trying to squeeze members of Congress to vote for the president’s plan.
And there was some strange editing by the NY Times that removed references to AIPAC’s political role from a published story. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
And, continuing down this path, check out this story, “An Inside Look at How AIPAC Beats War Drum on Capitol Hill” from the Washington Spectator.” It’s an eye-opener.
Adding to its importance are reports that key evidence used to back up the president’s call for military action may actually have originated with the Israeli military and intelligence services.
According the The Guardian newspaper:
The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once again, with money and numerous egos at stake the United States Of America is being played for the frickin’ fool. I agree with Alan Grayson.
What if FDR had listened to opponents of U.S. involvement in European affairs in 1939-40?
His support of Lend Lease saved Great Britain from German conquest. Sometimes history can teach us that a majority’s viewpoint can be wrong. We need to stand up to those who would do evil things and assume that good people and nations would notto oppose them.
A shout-out to you, Ian, for your excellent coverage on this topic.
Did any of our elected DC folks conduct town hall meetings on Syria during their vacation break? I know Hirono was traveling but what of the other 3? Any video conferences? Any constituent meetings at all?
One sane voice in Congress. Some progressive democrats meeting with Tulsi Gabbards rep. In Kailua today stated that they are empathically against action toward Syria and if Obama acts, they will burn their Democratic Party cards outside headquarters. Seniors are speaking!
There is a problem with The Guardian’s interpretation of the oft-cited report from the German weekly Focus.
Here is the actual language from the Focus report:
https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/krise-in-der-arabischen-welt/syrien/bundeskanzlerin-im-focus-interview-giftgasmassaker-in-syrien-merkel-fordert-zugang-fuer-un-inspekteure_aid_1080416.html
Nach Erkenntnissen israelischer Geheimdienstkreise ist der syrische Präsident Bashar al-Assad für den Giftgasanschlag bei Damaskus verantwortlich. Eine Einheit des Militärnachrichtendienstes Amam, die auf Funkspionage spezialisierte „Unit 8200“, kontrollierte zur Zeit des Gasangriffs die Kommunikation der syrischen Armee. Ein früherer Mossad-Offizier sagte FOCUS, die Auswertung habe eindeutig ergeben, dass der Beschuss mit Giftgas-Raketen von syrischen Regierungstruppen erfolgt sei.
You should actually translate it before you rely on it. I do NOT know German, but when I translate it on Google, I see this:
“According to the findings of Israeli intelligence community , Syrian President Bashar al -Assad is responsible for the gas attack in Damascus. One unit of the Military Intelligence Service Amam , which specializes in wireless spy “Unit 8200 ” , controlled at the time of the gas attack, the communication of the Syrian army . A former Mossad officer told FOCUS, the analysis has clearly shown that the bombardment with poison gas missiles was made by Syrian government forces.”
What is missing here???
The claim that the BULK of Obama’s evidence comes from the Israeli intelligence. I do not see this in the Focus report.
Note: I AM NOT GOING TO RELY ON GOOGLE!!!! lol
The issue of translation raises a big question about this critical Focus report. I respect the magazine and I expect a reliable translation of it. So far, I don’t see one. The Guardian sometimes has great journalism. The Guardian has also been subject to allegations of anti-Semitism.
I highly doubt that the majority of the intelligence was provided by Israel. That said, intelligence that is provided by Israel should be considered. Is Israel not the USA’s closest ally in the region? Is the Israeli Mossad not one of the best intelligence agencies in the world? And what about the Arab League? It claims that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. Is the Arab league relying on Israeli intelligence or does it have its own sources? There are some who will dismiss anything Israel says simply because it is coming from Israel.
Who is responsible and what is the appropriate response from the USA, are two separate questions.
Your final statement captures the real issue: “Who is responsible and what is the appropriate response from the USA, are two separate questions.”
separate yet entwined.
answering the second question while ignoring the first question can be an end- run easy approach to justify a selfish, preset conclusion.
meanwhile, innocent children choke on chemical weapons. out of sight, out of our minds.
meanwhile, there is no way i am going to ignore this issue, for obvious reasons:
“There are some who will dismiss anything Israel says simply because it is coming from Israel.”
I cannot allow these events be assigned to a particular group without their being held accuntable . How do we punish them?
Washington Post, 9/7/2013, PARIS — The European Union called Saturday for a “clear and strong” international response to what it said was “strong evidence” that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for a massive chemical weapons attack two weeks ago near Damascus.
But the E.U. statement stopped far short of endorsing a U.S. military strike — something that U.S. officials acknowledged many of the organization’s 28 members do not support.
E.U. foreign ministers, after listening to Secretary of State John F. Kerry explain the U.S. position on punishing Syria with a limited strike, also indicated that no action should take place until U.N. chemical weapons inspectors release their report at least two weeks from now.
A similar delay was advocated Friday by French President François Hollande, whose government had said until last week that it was “ready” to participate in a U.S.-led military strike against Syria.
The European Union said in its statement that it “hopes the [U.N.] preliminary report can be released as soon as possible and welcomes” Hollande’s preference to await its results.
Kerry, speaking in a brief appearance in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius, who hosted the meeting, expressed gratitude for “support for efforts to hold the Assad regime accountable for what they have done.”
Though U.N. evidence of a chemical attack may allow some Europeans to feel more comfortable about a U.S. strike and nudge public opinion toward supporting it, others say no attack can take place unless the United Nations authorizes the use of force — a development that remains unlikely. China and Russia, Assad’s main military and political backer, have indicated that they will continue to veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution.
Linkevicius, echoing the uneasiness voiced by many European governments about military action without U.N. authorization, said in his appearance with Kerry that “those responsible should be brought to justice; we will make full use of the United Nations.”
But neither he nor others who spoke at the conference spelled out what action they would find acceptable, short of a military strike and in the absence of U.N. agreement.
“Obviously there’s a diversity of opinion in the E.U.,” said a senior State Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/07/politics/us-syria-chemical-attack-videos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
First on CNN: Videos show glimpse into evidence for Syria intervention
(CNN) — Men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background.
These are some of the hard-to-stomach images that the Obama administration has shown a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.
CNN was the first to obtain the 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.
The attack, allegedly carried out by Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, has touched off the most critical foreign policy question since the uprising began in 2011: Is a military response merited?
The videos capture a moment of panic, as those who are standing try to feed water to those who appear incapacitated. Prayers are repeated.