Paul Krugman at The New York Times offers us a history lesson about—Love for Labor Lost:
It wasn’t always about the hot dogs. Originally, believe it or not, Labor Day actually had something to do with showing respect for labor.
Here’s how it happened: In 1894 Pullman workers, facing wage cuts in the wake of a financial crisis, went on strike — and Grover Cleveland deployed 12,000 soldiers to break the union. He succeeded, but using armed force to protect the interests of property was so blatant that even the Gilded Age was shocked. So Congress, in a lame attempt at appeasement, unanimously passed legislation symbolically honoring the nation’s workers.
It’s all hard to imagine now. Not the bit about financial crisis and wage cuts — that’s going on all around us. Not the bit about the state serving the interests of the wealthy — look at who got bailed out, and who didn’t, after our latter-day version of the Panic of 1893. No, what’s unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans.
William Kristol at
The Weekly Standard writes—
A Two-Fold Task:
Now those of us who believe that the U.S. must act, and must act decisively, in Syria and beyond, have a two-fold task. We need to persuade the Congress and the country to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force; and we need to persuade the administration (against its predilections) to take strong and decisive action. Both may be difficult. But, as Churchill once remarked, "difficulties mastered are opportunities won."
The Editorial Board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune writes—
Obama makes the right call on Syria:
The administration has not yet presented a persuasive case to the American people and their representatives in Washington that a U.S. military strike would have the intended effect — to dissuade President Bashar Assad from ever again using chemical weapons to murder and maim his own people. Nor has Obama articulated a broader strategy for containing the ongoing Syrian civil war.
As his critics suggest, Obama blinked by deciding not to act without congressional support. But what was lost? The nation will be better served by a full debate.
Robin Wright at the Los Angeles Times, who was in Lebanon in 1983 when President Reagan sent the Marines, writes—The risk of taking on Syria:
So the U.S. launches a military strike. Then what?
As the Obama administration and the U.S. military plot military action against Syria, they should be spending just as much time — and arguably more — considering what happens next. Once Washington crosses the threshold of action, there's no retreating from blame for anything that follows, whether through action or inaction. And in the weeks and months to come, dangers will only deepen.
First, quick hits rarely achieve enduring political goals — and often produce more costs or unintended consequences than benefits. I've seen it so often before.
James Jeffrey at
The Guardian writes—
Iraq and Afghanistan are with me every day, but UK made wrong call on Syria:
As someone who had enough friends killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during my time in the British army, I didn't expect to find myself pining for more of Tony Blair's pluck these days. I'm not his greatest fan.
But after Ed Miliband's – and other politicians' – political gaming-based or genuine opposition to consideration of British military action in Syria, Blair's leadership and moral courage during the Kosovo conflict stands out in glowing contrast. [...]
Politicians and their advisers can get it right – Kosovo – and they can get it wrong – Iraq and Afghanistan. For the sake of the Syrian people, I'm willing to at least trust our government to consider the options and be in a position to follow through on them if necessary and in league with an international coalition, including being able to act militarily.
The Editorial Board of the Denver Post states—
Obama right to go to Congress on Syria:
We'd argue the president had an actual obligation to go to Congress. The Constitution clearly bestows the power to make war on Congress, and a military strike on Syria — even of limited duration and without troops on the ground — is an indisputable act of war. So Congress should have a role in the decision unless the delay would put U.S. national security at risk, which is obviously not the case
Bob Dreyfuss at
The Nation writes—
Congress Must Block Obama's War:
Some might be willing to praise Obama for making a virtue of necessity and taking the case for his useless, strategically incompetent Syria plan to the Congress. In fact, without allies (except the French, who long for the long-gone “mission civilisatrice”), with public support, with the formerly puppylike UK, without backing from either the United Nations or the Arab League, Obama was naked before the world. So he wants congressional support for a mission that will kill civilians and accomplish, well, nothing. [...]
In fact, here’s what it says to Iran: We don’t care at all that you’ve elected a peace-minded new president, Hassan Rouhani, who might be able to work out a reasonable compromise on Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, Obama is saying, we’d rather bomb your ally Syria, bolster the hawks in Tehran, and go from there.
Matthew Waxman at
The New Republic says—
Obama's Speech Didn't Restore His Red Line. Here's What Could:
Carrying out the contemplated strikes could even undermine deterrence, depending on what happens next. There are, however, some steps the Obama administration could take to strengthen deterrence (or, in the Obama administration’s words, enforcement of the norm) against using weapons of mass destruction in the future.
First, too much emphasis has been placed on the idea that the calculus and behavior of other governments – including Iran’s mullahs – depends on whether the United States now carries out its threats against Syria. It’s tempting to assume that other leaders view this as a test case, but empirical evidence casts substantial doubt on this assumption about preserving credibility: Besides the fact that these dictators’ psychology often doesn’t match what we see as logical, they likely recognize the obvious reality that each case is different, and that the likelihood of major military action depends on many contextual factors including strategic stakes for the United States and its allies.
The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal got whacks the Secretary of State with a clumsy backhand in
Kerry echoes Bush in making the case on WMD in Syria.:
If John Kerry had talked like this in 2004, he would have been President. We're referring to his press conference Friday when the Secretary of State laid out the Obama Administration's most complete case so far that Syria has used chemical weapons and why the world must respond. [...]
George W. Bush and Tony Blair couldn't have said it better, though Mr. Kerry still couldn't resist taking a dig at Iraq. The Secretary was trying to distinguish his WMD evidence from that on Iraq, as if he also hadn't found the Iraq evidence compelling as a Senator before that war. The reality is that if Mr. Kerry and Democrats hadn't spent so much time trying to make the false case that the Bush Administration had cooked intelligence in order to start a war, perhaps he wouldn't be having such a hard time persuading a skeptical American public now.
Steven A. Cook at the
Washington Post goes thumbs-down when it comes to an assault on “the beating heart of the Arab world,” because, he writes—
In trying to help Syria, an intervention would destroy it:
Among the catalogue of horrors that Bashar al-Assad and his supporters have perpetrated against their people, the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta on Aug. 21 is particularly egregious. The consensus in Washington is that this violation of international norms — like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 23 summers ago — requires a military response. The Assad regime must be punished, and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un must be made to think long and hard before they resort to weapons of mass destruction, too. This view may be principled, but the Obama administration and its allies should understand that even limited intervention would hasten Syria’s demise.
The Editorial Board of The New York Times starts out talking about the Justice Department's more relaxed approach to marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado and concludes with:
In Congress, where it can be difficult for Democrats and Republicans to agree on the time of day, there is increasing bipartisan support for serious criminal justice reform. Two bills now under consideration would reduce many mandatory minimum drug sentences. On Sept. 10, a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws will take testimony from residents of Colorado and Washington about their states’ experiences with legalization. The nation’s costly and misguided conduct of the war on drugs has not been fixed, but a solution is drawing a little closer.
A little closer way too slow. Hundreds of thousands of non-violent Americans still in prison for no good reason. Tens of billions spent on enforcing bad laws, thus breeding disrespect for good laws.