Skip to main content

View Diary: Pew: 48% of Americans oppose airstrikes on Syria, with only 29% in favor. 54% want U.N. resolution (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What do you think this admin is lying about? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My main point is that I dont know if you can go solely by popular opinion.

    •  The reason the public was pro-Iraq War... (11+ / 0-)

      ...was that they didn't know they were being lied to.  Some of us policy geeks were pretty damn sure of it, but most Americans trusted their leaders to deal honestly with them.

      Today, after repeated assurances from the current Administration that this would be a limited action, with no boots on the ground, it was only with Kerry's bumbling in a Senate hearing that it emerged the Administration wants the option to send troops into Syria.  If the previous assurances weren't an outright lie, they also weren't a reliable basis for the public to rally behind authorization of a Syria strike.

      This whole subthread is occasioned by Lib Dem FoP's assumption that the public is wrong in their opinions in this instance and that MB is using the presentation of a poll to push for opposition to the authorization.  The diary was just reportage, bringing the most up-to-date temperature-taking to kossacks' attention, and the public is neither always wrong nor always right.

      •  I think people are making (0+ / 0-)

        too much of Kerry's comment. His fault maybe for talking about a hypothetical situation, but I think it hardly shows they want to put troops on the ground.

        I dont think public is always right or wrong, and I think MB is just reporting the poll.

        •  It'll seem like a cheap shot in debate,... (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, ukit, maryabein, JesseCW, JVolvo, jbsoul, acnetj

          ...but it's true: If we support our nation's troops, we dare not take Kerry's slip lightly.  Those are the ones who'd fill those boots.

          If we support preserving the social programs that are gutted to pay for wars, we dare not take Kerry's slip lightly.

          If we support moving away from military interventions in lands that don't want us and toward policies to ramp down consumption and preserve the planet we all must share, we dare not take Kerry's slip lightly.

          •  If it's a cheap argument (0+ / 0-)

            I would hope we wouldnt make it.

            Say we didnt intervene in Syria but a terror group got ahold of some CW. Would most people be against sending any kind of soliders, even special forces, to secure CW in that situation?

            Because that's what Kerry was talking about.

            The irony is there has been a lot of hysteria on the part of opponents of military action in Syria,  a lot of cheap remarks, snide comments, and snark about  Obama being like Bush, Kerry like Powell, and Syria like Iraq, when there is a much more rational case to be made against intervention.

            •  My point actually isn't cheap,... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

    's frighteningly true, though I'd agree that arguments like mine have been used cynically by others in the past.  Hence, my preface.

              I also haven't equated 2013 to 2003. Our dilemmas and challenges are plenty fucked-up without that.

              As for the rationale behind Kerry's slip, securing chemical weapons is actually impossible.  They are too cheap and easy to manufacture; you get them in one facility as they're made again and are fresher and more deadly in another.  We can only fail in our stated goal.

              More broadly, our nation is too obsessed with military action.  There are times, rare times, when those are merited, but it would be a minute fraction of the times they are undertaken.  War is not to be advocated.  It is not a course to convince others to undertake.  It is something to be lamented every time.  And any time you see or hear someone trying to convince us to bomb something or someone, that is not a lament, and it is not a worthy course to take.  Syria -- and I actually know a bit about this -- is not going to be where our military can do a net good.  It is where we will make things worse for the people who live there and for ourselves.

        •  No that comment is exactly the point (6+ / 0-)

          Even if they intend a limited strike, it isn't up to them how the conflict unfolds.

        •  It's not just Kerry's comment in isolation (0+ / 0-)

          The language of the administration's AUMF is extremely broad and would allow for troops in Syria, which matches what Kerry said today.

          The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

          by CenPhx on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:35:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The SFRC has revised it (0+ / 0-)

            It wont be that broad.

            I think the admin draft was left intentionally broad to win support, so it could be revised and narrowed by Congress.

            •  So the admin asks for broad authorization (0+ / 0-)

              And Kerry says they need broad authorization, but you believe they are aging some sort of eleventh dimension chess about what they want which relies on a senate committee to write up what the admin really wants? I don't buy that.

              The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

              by CenPhx on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:46:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll have to look at the transcript (0+ / 0-)

                But I dont know that Kerry was demanding broad authorization, in terms of allowing troops on the ground. I think he actually said the opposite, that he is willing to put a ban on troops in the AUMF.

                I think he was addressing a hypothetical of a terror group getting control of CW, something that I'm sure is a concern for admin officials even without military intervention.

                I wouldnt use the term 11D chess, but I think the admin did write the AUMF broad knowing it would be tough to get votes in Congress. This way they can give Congress a win by revising the bill to something more narrow that the admin still supports.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site