NY Times Op-Ed written by Sen Alan Grayson on Syria plan

[TrapperJohn]

The real plan is to rely on low-information voters who would support him if he was driving for a cliff at warp speed...

[oberon_1]

Originally Posted by jimj

There was an op-ed written today by Sen Grayson explaining what he is able to about the Syria, what evidence is available and much alluding to classified info.

Reading this I stand by my opinion that there's not enough upside to risking our butts in Syria nor that anything that's being suggested would actually do any good especially with some 8 pages of classified info about the negative aspects compared to just four pages of upside.

The most troubling of it all is this "Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided."

Here's a couple of excerpts:

THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no."

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/op...rify.html?_r=0

I am confused. What exactly do you expect? A CIA report addressed to US population to convince us we need to strike Syria?
Personally, I oppose military actions, regardless of what Assad said/did. I will support such move only if it has practical, well defined and immediate goals. "Sending Assad a message", "signaling Iran", etc. falls short of this. Assad doesn't need messages. He knows what he wants. Obama on the other hand, doesn't.

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

The real plan is to rely on low-information voters who would support him if he was driving for a cliff at warp speed...

Obama is not facing elections.

[Smoke_Jaguar4]

Originally Posted by jimj

[/b]

And it certainly shouldn't be stuck solidly up our behinds if we go into this mess thinking only of the upside that proponents of this attack want us to.

Actually, I agree with you. What we have seen in the last 24 hours is that the potential for a U.S. military response has invoked a change in the Syrians. They've effectively admitted to having a chemical capacity and are willing to turn it over. The worst thing we can do now is turn off the pressure. We need to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, but keep the military option viable. To quote Teddy Roosevelt: "Walk quietly but carry a big stick"