I like this:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
Four senators introduced bipartisan legislation Thursday that would curtail U.S. funding on activities that would escalate U.S. involvement in the bloody civil war in Syria.
The bill, filed by Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), Mike Lee (R-UT), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Rand Paul (R-KY), would prohibit the Department of Defense, the CIA and all other intelligence agencies from funding any military or operations in Syria, but would not impact humanitarian aid.
"The President's unilateral decision to arm Syrian rebels is incredibly disturbing, considering what little we know about whom we are arming. Engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East with no vote or Congressional oversight compounds the severity of this situation," Paul said in a joint press release from all the co-sponsors. "The American people deserve real deliberation by their elected officials before we send arms to a region rife with extremists who seek to threaten the U.S. and her allies." - TPM, 6/20/13
Here's what the bill calls for:
http://reason.com/...
Title: To restrict funds related to escalating United States military involvement in Syria.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Americans from the Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists Act of 2013”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ESCALATE UNITED STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA.
(a) In General.—Except as provided under subsection (b), no funds made available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
(b) Exception.—The prohibition under subsection (a) does not apply to funds obligated for non-lethal humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people provided directly by the United States Government, through nongovernmental organizations and contractors, or through foreign governments.
(c) Duration of Prohibition.—The prohibition under subsection (a) shall cease to apply only if a joint resolution approving assistance for military or paramilitary operations in Syria is enacted.
(d) Quarterly Reports.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on assistance provided to groups, organizations, movements, and individuals in Syria.
(e) Non-lethal Humanitarian Assistance Defined.—In this Act, the term “non-lethal humanitarian assistance” means humanitarian assistance that is not weapons, ammunition, or other equipment or material that is designed to inflict serious bodily harm or death. - Reason, 6/20/13
Glad to see Udall, Murphy, Paul and Lee take charge on this issue. Even the mainstream press isn't sold on the idea of arming Syrian rebels:
http://www.forbes.com/...
Polls say that 70% of the American people oppose sending arms to the rebels, mostly because of the perception it is too little, too late, and it will not do very much good. Syria is already awash in arms, and Assad’s forces have recently made gains on the ground that meager lethal assistance is unlikely to reverse.
Interventionists, led by newly appointed UN Ambassador Samantha Power and newly appointed National Security Adviser Susan Rice, might like to see an even more robust US involvement. They regretfully saw the day when Bill Clinton failed to intervene in Rwanda, and with 93,000 Syrians dead in two years, the Syrian humanitarian crisis makes the Rwanda hackings , as horrific as they were, look like small potatoes. But no one seriously favors a full-scale US invasion of Syria where we are not even wanted in the first place. Even the arch-interventionist John McCain, who favored sending arms, stops far short of US boots on the ground to establish a security corridor between the warring factions. We are a war weary, cash starved nation, and Obama shows wisdom in taking it slowly.
The overarching questions in Obama’s decision is what arms and what rebels. Are we sending only small arms or anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry? Do we into use the United States Air Force to establish a no-fly zone? Will our actions provoke Russia, which has a substantial investment in Syria? Syria provides Russia with a naval base in the port city of Tartus, and a beachhead on the Mediterranean. The White House has been dodgy in answering these questions. - Forbes, 6/19/13
If you would like more information on the bill, please contact any of the four Senators for more information:
Udall: (202) 224-6621
Murphy: (202) 224-4041
Paul: (202) 224-4343
Lee: (202) 224-5444
And while you're at it, how about signing Udall's petition stating your opposition to arming the Syrian rebels:
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In the 1980s, the United States armed Afghan rebels. We sent them weapons, intelligence, and training. The rebels were successful. But decades later, those same weapons wound up in the hands of our enemies, used against our armed forces in a desert war that has lasted for over ten years.
Are we really going to do that again? Congress is getting ready to send heavy weapons to rebels in Syria, despite our lack of information about who these rebels are.
The United States cannot afford to jump into the middle of another civil war in the Middle East. I'm teaming up with VoteVets to oppose this intervention, and we need your support. Add your name to mine and thousands of others. Tell Congress: Don't arm Syrian rebels:
http://www.tomudall.com/...
Syrian President Assad is a bad guy, there's no questions about that. The question is whether the United States is ready to hand over heavy weapons to people we barely know.
There is no clear leadership or direction for these Syrian rebels. We don't know what their motivations are, who they're allied with, or what they plan to do if Assad is overthrown.
I'm not prepared to start down this road. We would be injecting the region with powerful weapons that could easily wind up in the hand of people who will point them at U.S. troops.
Join VoteVets and me -- let Congress know that we don't want them to arm the Syrian rebels:
http://www.tomudall.com/...
We need to exercise caution before we jump feet-first into civil war in Syria.
Thank you for adding your voice.
Tom
Click here to sign udall & VoteVet's petition:
http://www.tomudall.com/...