The Case to Congress

As you’ve no doubt heard, President Obama gave a statement today in which he said he had decided to strike Syria. But then said he plans to have Congress approve the strike.

Here’s how the Administration plans to sell this to Congress:

And they detailed the coming campaign to get Congress on board:

  • Hammer home the potential threat to staunch ally Israel’s security
  • Provide detailed intelligence about the alleged attack
  • Underline that the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and make a case that American legitimacy — not just his own — is at stake.
  • Make the argument that failure to act could lead, one day, to terrorists acquiring chemical weapons from regimes like Assad’s — and turning them on America.

Item One: Assad’s alleged decision to use Chemical Weapons that he originally obtained to deter Israel against rebels presents “a potential threat to staunch ally Israel’s security.”

In recent months, Israel has successfully struck at Syria twice, and Syria didn’t even try to retaliate. Why does the US have to take a stand for the norm against using CW, when the Israelis are perfectly capable of doing so. I get that Israel can never be viewed as a neutral party with Syria, they do have unrivaled ability to stand against the use of gas against civilians.

Item Three: The US ratified the Chemical Weapons Treaty. But Syria did not. In the same way that Israel didn’t sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why do we expect Syria to abide by the former when we don’t require Israel to abide by the latter?

Item Four: A strike on Assad is likely to strengthen the Syrian rebels. Who are made up, increasingly, of a bunch of extremists with ties to al Qaeda. If we make it easier for the rebels to replace Assad, doesn’t that actually raise the likelihood terrorists will get Assad’s CW?

I’m glad the Administration has decided to go to Congress. But their argument is just as weak as it was.

Twitter14Reddit0Facebook19Google+0Email

66 Responses to The Case to Congress

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel RT @daveweigel: BREAKING: ABC News is demanding its share of credit for the Chelsea Clinton pregnancy.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @carolrosenberg Does he have that "prepared for a marathon" on auto-play?
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I'm going to start referring to Crystal City as SCATTERED CASTLES.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JasonLeopold Forgot the BREAKING tag. Oh wait. We knew that.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @tweetsintheME It's true. I've shamed flyover country.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TimothyS Why should defense contractors face consequences if the banks don't have to?
34mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Wonder if Darrell Issa will be as bothered by news IRS doesn't audit large partnerships as he is by political review http://t.co/rbjfbFr2v5
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @tweetsintheME I don't live in DC and I indulged in that stupidity!
37mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Really excited we'll have Bush v. Clinton to look forward to in the 2060 election, just like the 2016.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PhilPerspective @Will_Bunch It is just a freaking traffic matter, there is no reason for delayed sentencing that I can fathom.
47mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PhilPerspective @Will_Bunch Not sure why, the docket indicates he ganged his plea (that could only be to "guilty") on 4/3.
48mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Will_Bunch @PhilPerspective Was it MCSO? All I saw was it was justice court, which could be either Joe or AZ-DPS. Looks like pled out 4/3.
1hreplyretweetfavorite