Call our congressional delegation

Uncategorized

Events are moving fast, and we now know that President Obama has agreed to seek congressional approval for any proposed military action against Syria.

 I think this is a wise and necessary move, but it also means that the burden falls on us to make our opposition known.

Here's how you contact our congressional delegation:

Senator Patrick Leahy

  Here's his statement:

 “The President is right to seek authorization from Congress for a response to the Syrian regime's clear violation of international law, in the use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians.  I continue to oppose introducing U.S. troops into this conflict, and I continue to believe that seeking congressional approval of military action is called for.  Given the positions taken by past presidents, the President's decision to seek congressional approval is especially commendable.  I look forward to this debate, and we should have it openly in the Congress.”

 Senator Bernie Sanders

 Congressman Peter Welch

We always expect our delegation to vote the right way, and they generally do. Nevertheless, it helps to let them know how we feel and how strongly we support the progressive actions they take. 

 One last observation: the Republicans were true to form, being petty and trying to show the President up by not agreeing to cut their current vacation short to consider this. Typical, but it gives opponents of military action more time to mobilize.

17 thoughts on “Call our congressional delegation”

  1. Right on.  I know certain folks will disagree, but our delegation does generally vote the right way.  We can still help them by contacting their offices so they can publicly note our overwhelming opposition to military force.

    Also wouldn’t hurt to contact the President as well to reinforce what our reps will be saying.

    And that’s just a start…

  2. “The use of chemical weapons by the Assad dictatorship is inhumane and a violation of international law.  However, at this point in time, I need to hear more from the president as to why he believes it is in the best interests of the United States to intervene in Syria’s bloody and complicated civil war. I look forward to the Senate debate that will be taking place in the very near future.”

  3. I don’t like all the chest-beating rhetoric I’m hearing about Obama’s “red-line” statement.  That is good old fashioned “guy think” and it generally leads nowhere useful.

    Who the hell should even care how dialing it back “will be perceived by the world?”   If it is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do…both ethically and strategically.  

    There’s nothing wrong with throwing the enemy a little curve-ball every now and then, by not taking the bait. He’s already demonstrated that he is fully capable of hunting down the U.S.’s enemies with frightening efficiency, when they least expect it.

    As far as his legacy is concerned, history would reward Obama for not leading us all into the bear trap like his predecessor did, no matter what the hell he may have said in an unguarded moment months ago.

    Let us hope that common sense, based on the long and inglorious recent experience, will prevail.

  4. to come out of all this will be to see Repubs trying to figure out which is more important… their incessant hard-on for war or their incessant hard-on for sticking it to Obama.

  5. I get the caution about our military expansion, but I am haunted by the images of the children who have been gassed and now napalmed.  It appears that children are the target.  Why else would you attack a school?

    The Responsibility to Protect doctrine was developed in 2005 as a result of Kosovo and Rwanda (and we could add Armenia and Europe and Cambodia), with guidance from President Clinton who to this day regrets our isolationist policy in Rwanda.  

    I just don’t see how we can know that Assad has done this, and may do it again, or that others with the capacity will now resort to it, and do nothing.  

    We always regret this after the fact and wonder why no one stepped in.  

     

  6. Yes, there are always regrets, of course. Knowing that allows us to choose what it is we will regret.  I just think I am not comfortable being a bystander while a government gasses intentionally drops napalm on a school.  What a luxury for us to even debate such a question.

    Is there something else that we can do to hold Assad accountable?  Surely you are not suggesting that we do nothing.    

  7. The case must be referred to the court by the international security council of which Russia is a member and they have already said they will veto any moves in that area.  I’ll stop.  I get it.  “Who today remembers the Armenians?”  Whatever.

  8. J Hansen is arguing here that we should not be bystanders while Assad murders children.

    If this is meant as a defense of bombing Syria in retaliation, there is an unanswered question: how will this bombing END the killing?

    If we can’t answer that question convincingly — and I, for one, do not believe we can — then how is bombing in retaliation different from being bystanders?  And for that matter, why was it ok to stand by while Assad was killing children the old-fashioned way, but not with chemical weapons?  This war has already produced over 100,000 victims with plenty of children among them, I’m sure.

    I think the real underlying message here is punishment: anyone who uses chemical weapons deserves to be punished in like manner.  Which brings to mind Gandhi’s phrase: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

    Thanks Sue for your excellent comments.  I wanted to supplement them, not repeat them.

Comments are closed.