Where do our states 9 Representatives and 2 Senators stand on Syria?
From the looks of it Markey is a go, Lynch, McGovern and Capuano are a no, and Tsongas is unsure. Let’s here from the rest, particularly from Elizabeth Warren. This is the time to oppose the President from the left and assert the progressive values of our state which is against wars of choice.
Please share widely!
…and weighing their options and taking their consultation role seriously. I’m still willing for the UN to finish its job, but I have become more rather than less favorable to action in the past 24-48 hours. I watched Cameron’s statement and responses in parliament tonight and I think he made the strongest case I’ve heard yet. It seems this issue does not neatly run along the usual left-right lines. I’ve seen progressive cases made for intervention as well. Have you checked the respective websites for statements?
I sure wish they would say so, and also, state just what their criteria ARE. I am sick and tired of the “go along to get the money” attitude. The don’t rock the boat attitude. The leadership is always right kow-tow. Not from everyone, mind you. But from far too many. And I admit, spending 5 months looking death in the face has changed me, more than I even know in all likelihood.
The idea that will give us “credibility” is absurd on its face. Why don’t we use some of the “credibility” that we earned by killing thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the many more Iraqis and Afghans?
How much credibility do we gain with a mission that the President promises will not “put boots on the ground” and guarantees will not stop the killing or resolve the conflict?
We’ve come a long way from the “pay any price” for democracy rhetoric of JFK. Now it’s “we promise to risk nothing in order to solve nothing.”–but with maximum violence.
I agree with your statements 100 percent.
The WaPo site.
just approved a resolution authorizing the use of military force. The resolution was adopted with 10 members voting yes, 7 voting no, and one (Ed Markey) voting “present”. Not sure what his reasoning was, but a “present” vote on an issue as important as authorizing the President to attack another nation isn’t exactly inspiring.
Washington (September 4, 2013) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) released the following statement after voting “present” at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee mark-up of the Senate resolution, “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons”.
“The use of chemical weapons is a heinous and despicable act that is outside the bounds of civilized conduct.
“I participated in today’s committee consideration of the resolution and yesterday’s hearing as well as various classified intelligence briefings held since the President announced on Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization to strike the Assad regime.
“Before casting such a monumental vote, I need to review all of the relevant classified materials relating to this matter before I make a decision as important as authorizing the use of military force. The people of Massachusetts expect their representatives to have analyzed all of the facts prior to making a decision of this magnitude.
“I am concerned about the unintended consequences of a U.S. military attack on Syria and the potential that such a strike could lead, over time, to the entanglement of our brave service men and women in an intractable Syrian civil war.
“The resolution as currently drafted contains language that could be interpreted as expanding the scope of the U.S. military action beyond merely the degradation and deterrence of Assad’s chemical weapons capability.
“The current version of the resolution goes beyond the President’s objective of responding to the use of chemical weapons to call for a broader U.S. political and military strategy in Syria that includes expanded support for various opposition groups, efforts to limit support for the Syrian regime from the Government of Iran and activities to isolate terrorist groups in Syria.
“Although some of these may be desirable objectives, as written they could result in deeper U.S. military involvement in a country inflamed by sectarian violence.
“In the days to come, I will further examine the classified intelligence information and consult with experts before deciding how I will vote on the final resolution when it is considered on the Senate floor.”
http://www.markey.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345645
The humanitarian situation in Syria is unraveling quickly. To date, more than 90,000 have been killed and disturbing reports have surfaced that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.
A peaceful democratic transition, which ends in Assad’s ouster, is the ideal outcome. However, up until now the Assad regime has rebuffed efforts aimed at reconciliation and has recently fanned the flames of conflict with no real commitment to ending the violence.
While the mass killings must stop, and Assad must eventually answer for his crimes, any potential use of force would need to be very carefully weighed. Any intervention scenario would be complicated by Assad’s massive chemical weapons stockpiles and relatively sophisticated air defenses. We must carefully consider whether America’s vital interests are at stake, what the costs of intervention would be, and what outcomes we realistically expect to achieve. To that end, I voted in favor of an amendment to the FY 2014 NDAA which I believed would help to better define Congress’ role in our response to the crisis in Syria.
Ultimately, this is a regional problem, which requires a regional solution. Turkey, Iraq, and other members of the Arab league, all have vested interest in the final outcome, and we should continue sustained diplomatic engagement. It is also essential that Russia and China end their obstructionist behavior at the U.N. Security Council and work to facilitate multilateral support for the victims of this crisis.
I believe that any plan to arm Syria’s rebels with light arms and ammunition would also require careful vetting because there is a very real risk that these weapons could wind up in the hands of Al Qaeda-linked factions within the rebellion. It is also unclear, at this stage, whether this step will have a significant impact in tilting the outcome of the rebellion. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been provided with multiple classified briefings on the situation in Syria and continue to track developments there very closely.
http://tsongas.house.gov/foreign-affairs/#syria
Markey and Tsongas’ position in a nutshell
This is old stuff from Rep. Tsongas’s website. There is current language just reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Yes or No, Rep. Tsongas? I understand Tsongas is a House member but the time for “very carefully weighed” and “very carefully vetted” is fast coming to a close. The language sounds as if some disembodied force is supposed to be doing this weighing and vetting, when it is, of course, Rep. Tsongas herself. This on-the-one-hand, on-the-other won’t cut it at voting time. So, again, Rep. Tsongas–Yes or No to the reported Senate language.
I agree we need statements–clear, unequivocal statements. But we also need a tally of constituent calls and messages from each of the 11. Several national polls now suggest a clear majority opposes intervening in Syria. So a clear majority of Massachusetts voters is likely opposed as well. Each of the 11 needs to reveal what his or her constituents advocated so we can all understand who did, and who did not, defer to constituents on a matter involving no direct security threat to the United States and where US involvement may actually create security threats where none previously existed.
…not to take a poll or vote based on the preponderence of constituent correspondence.
What a sound majority is against a fight like this across party lines, it’s clearly not our fight.