Poll: no consequence for those voting to authorize action in Syria

Raw Story: The American public strongly opposes a US military intervention in Syria, despite a majority believing that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime gassed its own people, a poll showed Monday.

Almost six in 10 of the 1,022 adults questioned — 59 percent — said Congress should not pass a resolution authorizing even limited military action against Syria, a CNN/ORC International poll found.

More than seven in 10 said any such strike would not achieve significant US goals or serve US national interests.

And even if Congress authorizes military action against Syria, a 55-percent majority would still oppose air strikes against Syrian military targets. Without congressional support, the opponents increased to 71 percent of respondents.

This poll has been making the rounds on the blogosphere and Twitter — for the most part, minus one very important piece of info. “However, most of those questioned — 57 percent — said their representative’s vote in Congress would not make a difference in how they voted in upcoming 2014 mid-term elections,” the report goes on. “The mid-term polls are usually dominated by domestic issues.”

This is the sort of question that should be included in all issue polls: “OK, so how would it affect your vote?” You’ll find that a lot of times it wouldn’t. The odds are good that we won’t be attacking Syria, but don’t think that public opinion guarantees that. A congress critter can vote to authorize action and still be reelected. Unless people are willing to let the issue influence their vote, public opinion numbers on it are meaningless.

[photo by Paul Keller]

Alternative approaches to Syria begin cropping up

Washington Post: A draft resolution being circulated by two moderate Democratic senators would give the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the threat of “all elements” of U.S. military power.

Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are working on the alternative proposal, which would delay the immediate use of military force and compel the Obama administration to build more international and American political support for striking the Assad government, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The resolution would give the Assad government 45 days to sign the chemical weapons ban and require President Obama to present lawmakers with a plan to end the violence in Syria through diplomatic means, according to a draft copy of the resolution obtained by The Post from Senate aides.

Oddly enough, to the left of this solution is Republican Rep. Chris Smith’s plan, which would forgo military action entirely and instead would “call for an immediate ceasefire in Syria and direct the president to work with the United Nations to set up a tribunal to investigate war crimes committed by both the Syrian government and rebel groups in the country.” It’s not the greatest idea — if you find Assad guilty of war crimes, then what? — but give the guy credit for trying.

What’s bothered me about this all along is that, as far as the media was concerned, there has been no middle ground here. The voices speaking have been intensely polarized between “We gotta blow shit up right now” and “Yeah Sarin gas is terrible — but really, is it any of our business?” There’s plenty of room between those opinions for alternate solutions. Seriously, there has to be a more rational and serious approach than either “kill ‘em all!” or “who gives a fuck?”

And the way things are going right now, the White House would probably be smart to start demanding solutions from the naysayers; “‘No’ isn’t good enough. What’s your idea?”

They might just be able to draw people out to craft a serious bipartisan solution to a problem that would be immoral to completely ignore. As it is, “who gives a fuck?” is winning and, while that’s an alternative to war, it’s not an alternative to justice. Our choices aren’t just between going in guns ablazin’ or shrugging our shoulders and turning our backs. We should be working on finding the best alternative to the two.

[photo by Corey Templeton]

Surprising no one, Lindsey Graham resorts to fearmongering BS to lead the US into war

CBS Charlotte: South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

Graham told reporters in Goose Creek on Tuesday that taking action against Syria in response to the situation is not a question of yes or no, but rather a question of bad or worse choices.

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

This is just so wildly absurd, you really don’t know where to start. Let’s try the old tired and stupid “Iran could give nukes to terrorists” scare; no, Iran would not give nukes to terrorists. Ever. Why? Because the sort of terrorists Graham has in mind are unstable and unpredictable cultists who have no allegiance to nations. Handing them a nuke is handing a nuke to a potential enemy. The government of Iran is neither crazy nor stupid, so they’re going to keep any nukes under tight control.

And of course, there’s the little fact that Iran doesn’t actually have any nukes. And the idea that their nuclear research is for nuclear weapons is a matter of some debate. In fact, the Ayatollah — i.e., Iran’s “Supreme Leader” — has said that using nuclear weapons is a “big and unforgiveable sin.” So the “Iran is developing nuclear weapons” idea is entirely theoretical at this point.

Finally, assuming we could “block” anyone from developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, anyone?), what Iran thinks of our resolve would be irrelevant. In that scenario, they’d underestimate us and then we’d block their nuke program. Besides, which is more likely to pop into the Iranian leadership’s minds; the time we didn’t launch a limited strike against Syria or that one time we leveled Baghdad because Bush wanted to store up on “political capital?” If Iran needs proof that we’re freakin’ crazy enough to start swinging, I doubt that Syria is where they’d look to find back up for that assessment. We’ve got a long and dark history of jacking around with the lives of people in the middle east — a history that Iran is well aware of.

So if Graham really wants to make his case, he’s going to have to do a lot better than fearmongering fairy tales about Persian nukes in Charleston. Then again, as a neocon, he may not know any other way.

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

In Senate draft resolution on Syria, McCain finally meets a military action he doesn’t like

Talking Points Memo: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Wednesday that he doesn’t support the Senate’s version of the resolution to authorize force in Syria, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt reported on air.

According to Hunt, McCain said that he’s opposed to the resolution because it “doesn’t make any reference to changing the momentum on the ground in Syria” and it also fails to arm the Free Syrian Army, a rebel group fighting the Assad regime there. The Arizona Republican indicated that several other senators share his misgivings about the resolution.

Although he left the door open to voting against the Syria resolution, McCain suggested Tuesday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that it would send a "seriously bad message" if Congress voted against taking military action. On Monday, McCain said it would be "catastrophic" if Congress failed to pass the resolution.

Ah yes, this is the old John McCain that all of us know and few of us love. If I were to boil this position down to one cogent point, it would be that McCain opposes this resolution precisely because it’s carefully drafted to avoid mission creep and escalation into all-out war. The resolution deals strictly with chemical weapons and McCain desperately wants us to join in the fighting with the rebels because that’s what John McCain does — if there’s a war going someplace without American involvement, McCain feels sad and left out, like the only kid not invited to a birthday party.

Of course, McCain’s dissatisfaction is the equivalent of the Peace-Lover’s Seal of Approval. Greg Sargent points out that “McCain refusing to support limited use of force resolution makes it easier for liberals and Dems to support it.” Politics is much more the art of the kneejerk contrarian than the art of the possible these days.

It’s tempting to suspect that this is McCain’s strategy to get more people on board with military action, but his reported unhappiness with the resolution is just so John McCain. He’s opposing the current draft because it’s not an open declaration of all-out war, not because he’s playing chess. He’s wanted to join in with the rebels for a very long time and if any action isn’t specifically designed to aid the rebels and topple Assad, McCain has no use for it.

McCain probably will vote for this in the end, but only because he’s settling for what, in his eyes, is the only possible alternative to doing nothing.

[photo via NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan]

Not Obama’s best day of polling

Talking Points Memo: A new Pew Research poll released Monday finds little public support behind a recent Obama administration decision to provide limited military support to Syrian rebels.

In all, 70 percent of U.S. adults oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-regime groups in Syria. Twenty percent are in favor of it. These figures represent little change from last December, when 24 percent favored action, and March 2012, when 29 percent were in favor.

The latest Pew poll also found that 68 percent of Americans believe the country is too overcommitted in other issues to get involved in another conflict. Sixty percent expressed skepticism about the Syrian rebels, saying that they may be no better than the current regime. But, respondents agreed by a 53-36 percent margin that it is important for the U.S. to support people who oppose authoritarian regimes—a key part of the argument for why the U.S. should become involved in Syria.

Americans are divided on whether the U.S. has a moral obligation—49 percent agree, 46 percent disagree—to try and stop the bloody violence in Syria.

Or as Josh Marshall put it, the public is out of touch with DC. Like NSA polling, this one defies left/right polarization, with clear majorities of all political affiliations opposing the move.

Still, what are you going to do with opinions like these? People think we’ve got to do something, but not this. So then what? I don’t think the average person knows. I certainly don’t. But escalating the violence doesn’t seem to be a very popular solution.

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

C'mon! What's one more little war?

Jack Ohman, Sacramento Bee.

Stories to Watch: 4/20/12

Skipped the roundup because I had a project that took way longer than I expected. That's what happens when you screw it up the first time. Now here's the news...


What's worse than plagiarizing someone else's crazy-assed bullshit? As Southern Baptist big Richard Land found out, it's plagiarizing someone's else's crazy-assed racist bullshit. Bonus fun; Land leads the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention.


Team Romney seems extremely worried about the danger of faithless delegates.


Also in Romney news: his new national security adviser is a real dick.


George Zimmerman to be released on bail.


How insane is the right becoming? Fox News is too "liberal" for them.


Bill O'Reilly and Gretchen Carlson warn that watching Glee will totally turn kids gay.


Syria hasn't gotten any more peaceful.


Finally, RIP Facts.

Related articles

• Southern Baptist Convention to look into alleged plagiarism by Richard Land (thegrio.com)
• Southern Baptists to probe Richard Land's Trayvon Martin remarks (wilmingtonfavs.com)
• Mitt Romney trying to get conservatives in his corner - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
• George Zimmerman's bail has been set for $150,000, a bail that doesn't come without conditions. (shortformblog.com)

Stories to Watch: 6/17/11

I'm giving serious thought to taking next week off of blogging. Haven't decided yet, but it's been a while since I've had a vacation from it. Now here's the news...


Jimmy Carter calls for an end on the War on Drugs. Not the worst idea ever, considering that filling our prisons with nonviolent offenders is both mindbogglingly expensive and obviously not effective.


Bill O'Reilly scores one for conservative consistency; calls for David Vitter to resign in the aftermath of the Weiner resignation. Of course, it's never going to happen in a million years, but it's a nice gesture.


Polling shows a majority agree with the statement, "Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people."


US considers war crimes charges for Syria.


An Alabama Republican state senator and a horrible, horrible racist? Wow. I'm paralyzed with shock.


Russ Feingold's right; this does not seem like a step in the direction of overriding the Citizen's United ruling.


Finally, Andy Brietbart makes an ass of himself again. It's what being a media troll is all about.

Related articles

• Russ Feingold Lets Scott Walker Have It With Both Barrels (crooksandliars.com)
• Whither Vitter? (americablog.com)
• Russ Feingold: 'The Democratic Party Is In Danger Of Losing Its Identity' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Netroots Nation: Marcy Wheeler Introduces Guest of Honor Russell Feingold (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)