Skip to main content

This is a summary diary. Here you will find a list of the actions we suggested yesterday in the Caucus Diary on Syria.  I have tried to organize them in a helpful way. Time is very short, both for us in the lead-up to this vote and for me this morning as I have to run to a rally at Chris Van Hollen’s District Office. Things are heating up here!

So please don’t mind it that I’m not giving each Kossack credit for his/her idea. I’m throwing these together as quickly as I can. No lack of appreciation for your ideas is intended!

What We Came Up With Yesterday:

Traditional tactics (not to be despised!)

Since time is very very short, we may need to rely on the traditional ways of lobbying our legislators more than I’d like. But these tactics are not to be despised, though there are more effective ones, I think (the more effective ones often take more time, unfortunately).

1) Go in person and lobby. Especially veterans.

2) Use MB’s whip count diary, and focus on undecideds, especially those outside MIC interest. In other words pick the easiest ones first then dig in on the tough ones towards vote time.

3) Focus on the House; we have a better chance there.

4) But people with high-profile Senators can use them to generate publicity.

5) When they get to the floor we should flood c- span phones. People will be watching.

Follow the money

1) Boycott donors, and be loud about it. Either do it simultaneously with all of them or do a rolling boycott.

2)This may take a lot of time, and thus perhaps all we could do right now is call for a boycott with an online web page/petition—signers will be committing to boycott; funders of the Aye vote Reps would be listed, and phone numbers of their corporate offices included. In order to do this, necessary to go to MB’s whip count page and looking up the donors of the Aye vote representatives on Open Secret or Maplight. Could also be publicized on Twitter and elsewhere, once page was up.

Follow me below the orange squiggle for messaging ideas, PR, and legislative tricks we could use to stop this march to war.

Messaging:

1)    Let's stay focused and deliver the same message, regardless of who we're calling. The language should A) counter the current words being used to sell this "limited action" to us by our "media", using actual facts and examples, but B) still be short and sweet enough to keep the attention of the person answering the phone (who of course will not be the rep or senator). Top two talking points:  Powell Doctrine says NO! and cost of war.

2)    Point 1:  Powell Doctrine

a.    'Syria Fails Powell Test, you must vote no’: I'd frame the message as a demand for  'no military action' because the case for action in Syria fails the Powell test.  This framing tells reps that the American people are saying 'no'.

b.     YOU MUST VOTE NO because:
1)NO vital national security interest threatened.
2) NO clear attainable objective.
3) NO full, frank analysis of risks and costs.
4) NO non-violent policy means not fully exhausted.
5) NO plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement.
6) NO full consideration of the consequences of our action.
7) NO SUPPORT from [percentage] of the American people
8) NO genuine broad international support

3)    Point 2: How will we pay for it?

a.    RIGHT NOW, what will YOU be willing to cut, to pay for another war? Go on record, if you don't mind, sir/ma'am, thank you very much~!

b.    Insist that it come out of the NSA  budget: 'Want War? - De-fund NSA!'

c.    If we don't have enough money to create jobs for the American people, do we have enough money to go to war?"

4)    Point 3: Along those same lines: “As a military wife, I think it's super important to get politicians to think ahead as to the cost of veteran's care in any war. If we have a definite in and out plan for this act of war, we can also have an estimate of injured and killed in action. From that estimate, Congress should come up with dollar figures for the life long care of the injured veterans and for the families of those who die.”

5)    Other talking points/language for signs, etc. We should focus primarily on our top two talking points, IMO, but especially for signage and perhaps in press conferences if we can organize any, some of these points could be useful:

a.    Who is going to be the first one to die for still another mistake?

b.    Last night I saw a photo on facebook of a marine holding a sign saying he didn't sign up to fight on the same side as Al Qaeda.

c.    When has gasoline ever put out a fire?

d.    How does more violence really make a good case against violence?

e.    Doesn't an eye for an eye make the whole world blind?

f.    How does killing people teach people not to kill people?

g.    What makes chemical weapons worse than drones or missiles sent from ships?   All weapons kill people.


Messaging specifically for conservative Congresscritters

Press the buttons that are already there.  On the telephone no one can tell if you are a real tea party idiot or not. Appeal to their conservative mindset, no one knows how to kill any Obama sponsored legislation better than Republicans. The easiest way to get any resolution killed is to have the republicans kill it, they control the airwaves and always get more than equal time in all media. Let's use them.

1)    Demand that any resolution include budget offsets that pays for the adventure.

2)    Put an expiration date on any resolution.

Legislative Tricks

Load it up with amendments.

1)    Targeting the President (to force a veto)

a.    hell put defunding Obamacare in there.

b.    attaching a rider that effectively defunds the Affordable Care Act or gouges Social Security would ensure that the President stops it if it gets anywhere near his desk.

2)    Targeting the Republicans and Conservative Democrats:

a.     How about coupling it to an amendment enacting single payer health care?

b.     Attach a Federal gun registry mandate. Let's not have Dems attacking important safety-net programs, please.

i.    Premise:  If America is in so much danger, America needs to know where its military-grade weapons (ordinance) are being held, in case it needs to call up ordinary citizens for active defense of the country.  Therefore, National Gun Registry, to be completed and available to Federal State, and Local officials (including DHS) before any military action in Syria.

PR or How to Get the Messaging Out There

1)    Letters to the Editor using Powell Doctrine and Cost of War talking points

2)    Push on Twitter (same talking points)

3)    Blogathon at Daily Kos (ditto)

4)    FB or Reddit (ditto)

5)    Postcard campaign (ditto)

a.    They are physical mail that must be handled (not given auto-replies); everyone that handles them will see the message; as postcards (not envelopes) they'll get through safety-processing quicker.

b.    The text can be computer-printed on one side of 4x6 cards, with a little space for brief comment & signature; print sheets of labels for reps and attach.  Attach postage.

c.    Carry them with you everywhere and ask people if they'd like to tell their reps to vote no on Syria; if yes, hand them a card and ask them to write their name/address in return address spot and sign the back of the card.  Tell them you'll be glad to mail the card for them, or let them mail themselves if they're leery of giving someone their address.

6)    Fliers using postcard text for local businesses.

7)    'Burma Shave' signs, one Powell Doctrine item per sign with PD items in NO formulation

a.    This would mean that, for events, at least 8 people would be needed, one for each PD item.

8)    Projectors?

a.    On buildings easily seen on major thoroughways?

b.    More info on how to handle projected images:

i.    Any major urban street.that gets nighttime eyeballs over the stretch of a couple of minutes.  

ii.    If you broke it up into shorter elements, point by point in sequence (from the Powell Doctrine), people would most often encounter the elements in mid-stream.  With the numbers leading each line, they'd grasp that quickly and want to see the whole, so they'd be more or less transfixed until the whole thing scrolled through again.  If each line gets maybe ten seconds, it'll take a minute and a half to see the whole thing, a little longer to come mid-stream and wait for the whole thing in proper sequence.  

iii.    You need to think of where people have two minutes of more or less undistracted time to wait for it.  Once they see it, they will wait.A heavily-visited urban context, where people are hanging out at restaurants or shopping, would be ideal.

iv.    If you did projections, not signs, by a road, it should be a road where there'd not be too much danger from a distraction.  Private property would be best.  Imagine this projected on the side of a barn on a local highway leading into or out of a nighttime destination.

Website for help in producing materials, support for activists

 A 'landing page' with PD text & plan with URL on flier (but not on postcards, imo).

1)    Have formatted printout of flier available for download (pdf?)?
2)    Formatted text for postcard printing? (Or too many variables in people's equipment?  Or wold pdf take care of that?)
3)    Depending on website, could possibly have an 'I did this!' page for people to say, like, 'Distributed 15 postcards in (District); Put filers in 3 stores' etc.

Again, I'm sorry this is a rushed diary, but I now have less than an hour to get into presentable-to-Congressman-clothes and get to Rockville.

I hope this is a helpful resource to people. I would like it very much if people could check back in with diaries saying which actions they're doing and reporting on how they go!

Best to everyone.

1:43 PM PT: Here's a link for contacting Congress:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I just read Van Hollen's (4+ / 0-)

    position on this. It appears to me that he will vote yes for the intervention if it is narrow.

    http://vanhollen.house.gov/...

  •  I am sorry but I can't be here-- (24+ / 0-)

    I have an anti-war rally to go to outside Chris Van Hollen's office in exactly 52 minutes, and it's at least 1/2 hour away. Gotta run, but I hope this is useful for you guys.

    If anybody wants to take action on any of these points, please let us all know, and afterwards, let us know how it went!

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:06:27 AM PDT

    •  Keeping comments on-topic WORKED! (6+ / 0-)

      I just want to mention, SLiM, that the use of community moderation to minimize off-topic comments and prevent thread-jacking WORKED in yesterday's diary.  Because commentors posted reminders to stay on-topic, the thread remained very focused and was very productive -- as the ideas in your diary today show.

      I sure hope you don't get any blowback for this -- for using the 'stay on topic' techniques for community moderation of a comment-thread. I'd have to re-read the 'New Rules', but iirc, it's still OK to discourage off-topic comments, and thread-jacking is still a crime.

      The site's motto, at the top of the main page, is 'News - Community - Action'.  Yesterday's comment thread (imo) is an example of a Community gathering for Action -- which is, if I understand correctly, the goal of the Caucus Group.  It's hard to imagine that Kos would want to squelch this kind of Community-For-Action achieved through community moderation to keep a thread on-topic.

      Anyway, great effort!  Thanks!

      •  Well, thanks. :-) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit

        I will have more to say about all that after the authorization vote; I think it would be highly inadvisable to get drawn into meta while we're in an extremely time-sensitive effort to avert war. Which is not to say I don't appreciate your kind words. But truly addressing the issue you raise will have to wait till after the vote.

        I do think the diary went rather well.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:30:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just commenting on community moderation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          used successfully to stay on-topic.  Not wanting to 'get meta'.

          •  Oh, no, not you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit

            That was not a criticism of your comment.
            It was an acknowledgment that we're going to have to talk about this more in the future, but that conversation shouldn't happen till after the vote, IMO

            I very much appreciate your kind words about the work we did yesterday.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:41:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Someone who knows what he's talking about, (20+ / 0-)

    Juan Cole, has  a short but good post today,

    A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War

    By striking Syria, Obama has all but guaranteed that a negotiated solution becomes impossible for years to come. In the absence of serious negotiations, the civil war will continue and likely get worse. The US should give serious thought to what the likely actual (as opposed to ideal) reaction in Syria will be to the landing of a few cruise missiles.

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:32:30 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for excellent action summary (14+ / 0-)

    you really did capture (imo) all the suggestions for action that were brought up in yesterday's diary.  And actually, I like that you didn't ascribe identities to the ideas.

    You may also want to include the link below in your diary -- near the top?  It was introduced in yesterday's comments, then CindyCassella wrote a diary about her use of it (excellent rant!)

    'Contacting The Congress' --
    http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

    •  Just an add-on (3+ / 0-)

      The conversation has been very focused on whether  to take military action or not. As if "not" means we do nothing. A lot more could be done, in my opinion, by having some talks as in diplomacy.

      Once again US foreign policy looks more like a hammer than a helper. It really sucks.

      A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

      by onionjim on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:31:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yesterday's diary was action-oriented w goal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        onionjim, SouthernLiberalinMD

        being: what actions can we take to communicate to Congress that we want them to vote against military intervention in Syria?  That was the specific definition of the topic of the diary.  Today's diary summarizes the action steps suggested by yesterday's diary.

        The action-goal of yesterday's diary was not 'how can we find better alternatives to military intervention in Syria?', although that is a perfectly worthwhile subject for discussion.

        And of course I agree that diplomacy is a better option.

    •  You're welcome! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      I'll update.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Personally, I support the presidents stand against (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    Syria.  I simply cannot understand how people can sit by and watch Syria use chemical weapons to attack civilians.  Since many here believe one chemical attack isn't enough to warrant US intervention, could someone tell me how many more times can Syria do this.  2x? 5x?  Is there a number out there before the president (or any president) can respond?  Are there no consequences for using chemicals to kill civilians?  Or is it that you believe President Obama and Sec. Kerry are liars?  And if that's the case, simply say it.

    As for the list of tactics, I do not think they will be very effective.  The biggest problem will be that if members vote against this authorization and Assad does it again, those members will look foolish.  If people thought Kerry flip flopped, just wait until those that vote against the President have to explain why with pictures of victims of another chemical attack in the background.

    And as for the monetary costs?  Please...either it is the right thing to do or not.  When we start deciding right and wrong based on the dollar amount, we truly have lost our way as a nation.

    The President has rightfully called for action against Syria for its crimes against humanity.  I commend him for sticking to his principles, regardless of the political consequences to him.  That is a true leader.  One who does what is right regardless of polls.  I voted for President Obama because I trusted him to lead our nation.  His stand makes me proud that I did.

    •  Please show me the proof (7+ / 0-)

      that establishes that this release of chemicals was ordered by the Syrian government.

      Even if it were, where is it written that it is the U.S.'s responsibility to respond by military attack?  "Crimes against humanity" are charges brought against individuals not states.

      And why are we interjecting ourselves into a civil war where both sides are terrible?

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:40:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sec. Kerry provided the proof. Unless you believe (0+ / 0-)

        both he and the president are lying?  And if so, simply say that.  The President and Sec. Kerry have looked at all of the information and determined Syria orchestrated this attack.  I voted for President Obama because I trusted him.  I still do.  It's sad that so many continue to question President Obama's integrity and trustworthiness.

        And it is not written anywhere that it is the US's responsibility to respond.  But it is understood.  It is part of what leading the United States means:  to try to, when possible, to help and protect those who can't protect themselves.

        We are rightfully injecting ourselves into this war because one side decided to use chemical weapons to kill civilians.  we are ensuring that all governments and militaries understand that there are powerful consequences to these actions.  If we don't respond, why wouldn't Assad do it again?  It seemed to be terribly effective.

        •  He didn't show me any proof (8+ / 0-)

          Just assertions not backed up with specificity.  Even the intel he is relying on said it could not confirm that this was ordered by the Syrian government.

          "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

          by Paleo on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:03:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you believe both Sec. Kerry and President (0+ / 0-)

            Obama are lying?  Do you believe they are not intelligent enough to understand the evidence provided to them? Or do you believe they simply are itching for a war and are willing to manufacture any evidence that gets them to war?  Because, honestly, this is what it comes down too.  

            It's one thing to say that regardless of the evidence, we should stay out of this.  I would respectfully disagree and explain why.  But it's another to say the President and Sec of State are not being honest with the American people and the world.  Again, I would disagree, however it would not be nearly as respectful.

            And I'll ask again:  Since one chemical attack isn't enough to warrant a response, is there a number that does?  Or do we simply sit by and allow Assad to use his chemicals without consequences?  And if there is a number that would warrant a response, I believe many are being intellectually dishonest with their position.  If Assad does it 3 more times and finally everyone says, "enough", then one use of chemical weapons should warrant the same response.

            •  You're not addressing the issue (5+ / 0-)

              Where's the proof?  

              And one can fudge facts, or make exxagerated assertions based on the available facts, without outright lying.  Happens all the time in both diplomacy and war.

              "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

              by Paleo on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:17:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are acting as though I should have all the (0+ / 0-)

                available evidence at my finger tips.  Sec. Kerry and President Obama have shown where the attacks occurred, and from where they originated.  They have spoken at length about how all the evidence points to the Assad regime ordering these attacks.  You are acting as if they don't have Assad's signature on the order and video of his troops firing the chemicals, then there really is no evidence.

                Again, I trust President Obama.  I do not believe he would lie us into a war that he has little desire to fight, and has tried to keep us out of for over a year.  Either they are lying or not...it's really that simply.  Your attempt at using semantics to not call them liars is silly.  Either call them liars no different then President Bush, or trust the man who has done nothing to indicate he has wanted to involve our country in this war.

                •  Not semantics and not the issue (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, aliasalias

                  And "appeal to authority" is weak.

                  "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

                  by Paleo on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:46:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you believe President Obama has been itching (0+ / 0-)

                    to involve the U.S. in this war?  Because I believe he has shown a great reluctance to get involved.  Only after he believed Assad ordered chemical attacks, did he show a willingness to get involved.  And for good reason.  Chemical attacks cannot be allowed.  There must be consequences.  Otherwise, because they are so effective, they will continue in both Syria and elsewhere.

                    I can see that I'm simply becoming a distraction to this diary and will step away.  But it truly disappoints me that so many here (of all places) distrust our president.  But ask yourself, "If we can't trust President Obama, who can we trust"?  Why trust him on anything he says?  Why trust him on social issues or economic issues, or any issues?  If you believe he is lying us into war then you should be willing to say so and call for his impeachment.

        •  Why say it when Kerry won't let the proof (11+ / 0-)

          be seen? That's not being a liar, per se. What he's engaging in is a deliberate sin of omission. Draw your own conclusions.

          If Kerry or Obama want war, they need to demonstrate it with something besides the "word" of a bunch of damned war mongers who utilized this same exact SOP to "sell" Iraq to the American people.  PROOF presented to Congress, out in the open, for all the world to see.

          Doing more than pay lip service to the folks who will actually foot the bill here would also be welcome.  

          because one side decided to use chemical weapons to kill civilians.
          Please demonstrate with something besides "They told me so", that clearly proves which side used it and specifically, who ordered it. Links are, of course, helpful, but they should be the kinds of sources not prone to making shit up (see: Judith Miller and the NYT)
          And it is not written anywhere that it is the US's responsibility to respond.  But it is understood.
          By whom?

           Please, feel free to speak for yourself, but do not presume to speak for anyone else.  

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:04:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  At least Colin Powell had a glass vile. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    •  You repeat the myth that won't die: (12+ / 0-)
      I simply cannot understand how people can sit by and watch Syria use chemical weapons to attack civilians.
      I hear this repeatedly, every day.  Every time I hear it, I ask, who, specifically, is advocating simply sitting by and watching, doing nothing?  And every time, I get no answer or a change of topic.

      Now, you might not like or prefer non-military actions like diplomacy, but they are still actions.

      "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

      by Calvino Partigiani on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How long has this war been going on? At what (0+ / 0-)

        point does diplomacy simply become a stall tactic?  I would argue diplomacy only backed by force in this situation will work.  Assad used chemical weapons very effectively to wipe out his enemies. If all he has to worry about is "more diplomacy", what lesson has he learned?  There must be consequences to the use of these weapons.

        •  The use of force will most likely prolong the (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit, HCKAD, Johnny Q, wu ming, aliasalias

          war.  This would increase the number of deaths of innocent civilians.  See here.

          "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

          by Calvino Partigiani on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:27:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No conflict has ever been decided by bombing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HCKAD, CroneWit, Johnny Q

          We bombed the bejesus out of both Germany and Japan in WW II, and they kept on fighting. I am not saying it had no effect: but it didn't decide the war (I am talking of course about conventional bombs, not nuclear).

          So, we bomb Syria. That does what, exactly? There is talk about targeting their chemical weapon facilities, assuming we know where they are. That might have some effect but it is not going to tilt the civil war against Assad. IMO it is not going to "teach him a lesson," either.

    •  Your scenario: (5+ / 0-)
      The biggest problem will be that if members vote against this authorization and Assad does it again, those members will look foolish.
      But the current resolution calls only for 'degrading' Assad's chemical weapons.  It is understood that to destroy Assad's CW capabilities, a ground invasion, that is, boots on the ground, is required.

      So what if members vote for this authorization and Assad does it again?  What then?

      "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

      by Calvino Partigiani on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:14:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you will see the many more countries (0+ / 0-)

        throughout the world support the US.  You will see a strong international push for the end of the Assad regime.  And you will see a President and congress push for further actions against Syria.  And they will do so in a bipartisan way that will speak to the world that the US is united against these types of weapons being used

        I'll ask again:  Is there a number of chemical attacks that Syria can do, before a response is warranted?  Obviously, one does not warrant a response in your mind.  Do you believe we should stay out of this regardless of how many times Assad orders chemical attacks?

        •  You know, it really sucks - (3+ / 0-)

          not that you have an opinion - but that you chose to use it to hijack an action diary that someone (who is already obviously very busy) devoted time to for the benefit of our community.  There are plenty of other diaries on Syria where you could debate your opinion with others.  Whatever compelled you to be so disrespectful of SouthernLiberal's work?

  •  The Assad are not very smart people (0+ / 0-)

    Thier father was so dumb that he appointed a Mossad agent second in command to him named Eli Cohen ,during the Arab Israelis war,he was eventually found out and hanged by Syria, after Israel had all the Arab war secrets ,that led to Israel victory over Syria and thier capture of the Golan Height , go  to yahoo and search "Assad and Eli Cohen"

  •  good work (13+ / 0-)

    and thank you

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:44:57 AM PDT

  •  systemic approach - thanks for the diary (8+ / 0-)

    different focus for different groups

    different focus concerning different issues

    very useful

    thanks

  •  SO glad to see a diary focused on (8+ / 0-)

    concrete solutions. I feel so helpless lately and the constant negativity about the situation is only making it worse. It's about time someone came up with a list of suggestions about what we can do besides complain on the internet. Thank you.

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

    •  You're welcome. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, Calvino Partigiani, Matt Z

      I'd like to do more.
      Actually, there was one key thing I forgot to add in the last diary, and I may have to do an Action Diary on it.

      We should have a call for action on a specific date, so we can do synchronized actions.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:37:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  thanks SLiM (4+ / 0-)

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:03:58 AM PDT

    •  you're welcome :-) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pfiore8

      I have some ideas for how to move forward, but they're not specific to getting Congress to vote no, so I don't want to muddy the waters right now. Important we remain focused!

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama put the US and himself in a corner (3+ / 0-)

    But I give him credit for opening the escape hatch of congressional approval.  The military/intelligence/industrial complex probably pushed him into this very bad 11 dimension chess move.  But he transcended them by going to Congress thanks to the British rejection IMO.

    Escape hatch photo escapehatch_zps1da851a0.jpg

    I hope Obama is thinking at least 3 moves ahead.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:51:18 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site