“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Wednesday is Ladies’ Day.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Congress, think carefully before intervening in Syria
President Obama’s decision to ask Congress to authorize any action towards Syria is both courageous and correct. He ignored the inevitable scorn he would get from the armchair patriots who believe the U.S. president can dispatch the military anywhere, at any time, for any reason. He reportedly overruled the advice of most of his national security team that wanted to strike Syria without going to Congress. After the British parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s appeal for authority to join the United States in the Syrian strike, Obama knew the vote in this bitterly divided and dysfunctional Congress would be “a tough sell.”
But he made the right call, responding not only to his constitutional obligation but to the more than 150 legislators from both parties who signed letters calling on the president to seek approval from Congress before taking action. According to polls, a strike on Syria, even in response to the proven use of chemical weapons, is opposed by a plurality of Americans. Neither the United States nor its allies faces any imminent threat from the Syrian regime. If the United States is a constitutional democracy, surely this is a case where the Congress, the people’s representatives, should determine whether the nation gets involved in – as the president put it – “someone else’s war.”
Phyllis Bennis: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and Dangerous
Whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria would be a reckless and counterproductive move
If I were very optimistic, I’d say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament, and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook – he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it’s Congress’ fault.
But unfortunately, I don’t think that much optimism is warranted. Obama’s speech – not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command are not time-bound – gives opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilise, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president accurately described it, “some things are more important than partisan politics”. For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama’s progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial.
Everyone who has commented on the draft Menendez-Corker resolution to strike Syria (pdf) has focused on this language:
The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, [my emphasis]
The pursuit of a somewhat pregnant war continues!
And while the resolution makes pains to limit our involvement geographically (though John Kerry implied today if Syria’s allies get involved than we’d be able to go after them), it also allows boots on the ground for non-combat functions.
The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.
And I’m rather interested in this language, which SFRC added from the White House version.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States:
I’m sure that won’t be abused at all.
Natasha Lennard: High rhetoric as Kerry, Hagel pitch Syria strike to Congress
“It’s about humanity’s red line,” says Kerry, in a contentless narrative of good versus evil
With echoes of John Kerry’s statement of high moral valance on Syria last week, the secretary of state alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel brought his rhetoric-infused war cry to Congress. [..]
Both Hagel and Kerry argued that the “morality” and “credibility” of the U.S. as a world leader hangs in the balance over striking in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people. The administration has chosen its course: a guilt trip into another war, buoyed by the added threat of “baddies” taking advantage of U.S. inaction. The Senate was presented a neoliberal tale of good versus evil (“All of us know that the extremes of both sides are there, waiting in the wings,” warned Kerry), with little content in terms of precise objectives or shape of the planned Syria attacks, nor a defense in terms of international law. Indeed, on the same day as Hagel and Kerry made their case to Congress, U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon warned that a U.S. attack could unleash further turmoil in the beleaguered region. Little matter: If the high, empty rhetoric of the administration is any indication, there will be war (despite Kerry’s comment to the Senate hearing that “President Obama is not asking Americans to go to war”).
Mary Bottari: Failing Up to the Fed, A Reporters’ Guide to the Paper Trail Surrounding Larry Summers
The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein reports that Larry Summers is the “overwhelming favorite” of the Obama team for the job as Federal Reserve chairman. To convince the American public that one of the chief architects of the 2008 financial crisis should be the chief regulator of the U.S. financial system, supporters of Summers have their work cut out for them.
Cue the rewrite.
The New York Times reports that some of Mr. Summers’s supporters “argue that better oversight of derivatives would not have prevented or significantly diminished” the 2008 financial crisis. One former Treasury official told the Times that Summers secretly wanted derivatives regulated, but couldn’t win the support of Greenspan or Senate Republicans so dropped the idea.
For journalists who are being told what a brilliant man and insightful regulator Larry Summers was behind the scenes, here are a few items from his public record you might want to review.
Allison Kilkenny: Austerity Is for the Little People: Syria Edition
Schools, libraries, post offices and other public services are closing across the country in the wake of budget cuts, and Congress may have just voted to cut $1.5 trillion from programs like Head Start over the next decade, but many officials still feel confident the US is positioned to fund yet another expensive military operation in Syria.
Obviously, current and former officials aren’t debating the moral implications of killing human beings in order to “save” other human beings as part of a murky plan that essentially boils down to underwear gnome logic (cruise mussels + something = Assad is gone and democracy!), but these same officials brazenly claim that the cost of a military operation in Syria will be “relatively easily absorbed.”
Recent Comments