CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
50%↑
15%
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 05, 2013 06:43 AM UTC
31 Comments
Question of the day:
If Sweden launched 10 cruise missiles at the U.S., targeting NSA facilities. And they told us beforehand that this was because the NSA had crossed a red line in it's monitoring of people. Would the reaction of the U.S. be: A) Point taken, we'll restrict our spying to what the world deems acceptable, or B) This war, prepare for a whole lot of whoop-ass (our whoop, your ass).
So when the Obama Administration claims that firing 20 – 40 cruise missiles at Syria is not getting us into a war, are they lying or stupid?
This is not a rhetorical question. Bush (with Iraq) and LBJ (with Vietnam) truly believed we would be in and out. Even very smart people can convinience themselves that what they want to be the outcome is what will happen. And that almost always ends up a disaster.
So, can anyone in Congess vote in favor of the Syria resolution if it's likely that the Obama Administration is not looking at how this will play out and is not prepared for the likely consequences?
Not really equivalent (Sweden vs. US and US vs. Syria). Syria has other things on their mind – a real war or even significant effort at retaliation is likely to lead to their defeat on the ground without our significant intervention. I'd be more worried about Iran or Russia getting involved than about a major Syrian retaliation – and I think that's a tap dance Obama has to play with Putin at the G20 meeting.
Also not equivalent – Iraq or Vietnam. I don't know who fooled who over Iraq, but the original plan (the PNAC plan) was never to get in and out. There was a failure to listen to miltiary leadership that resulted in Rumsfeld's two-week fantasy. And both Vietnam and Iraq were fully engaged on the ground with a goal of control of the country. The clear mission in Syria is a single retaliatory strike.
Yes, there is certainly a risk of escalation. There's no denying that. This is not (and should not be) a decision taken lightly by any President or Congress.
If there was UN sanction, would such action be okay? Certainly Syria would still respond if it could.
And if any country can use chemical weapons thinking they're safe because someone at the UN will defend them and prevent an international resolution from passing, then do we accept our role as passive observer, or do take action regardless?
My point is that firing the missiles is an act of war. Do you agree with that?
You're right that Syria is probably too busy with the other things on its plate to respond. But blow-back of some sort is likely, be it terrorists sent by Syria or Iran, or Russia deciding to respond somehow (like ask Snowden to release everything).
If the Obama Administration figures they fire the missiles and then go back to "normal" and is not planning for possible reactions – then we're going to have a big mess.
From what I've seen, Obama is not the type to take military decisions without considering the blowback potential.
Asking again – if we fire the missiles, is that an act of war?
Answer: yes.
So, technically, is unleashing a cyber attack on a foreign country IMHO. The Syrian Electronic Army, widely associated with the Syrian government, has already attacked both civilian and US government assets. (For that matter, so has China, and Russia. So have we against other nations…)
PS – I wasn't trying to evade the question – I think it's an obvious one that doesn't really deserve an answer, and I'm not one of the righties on the board here, thank you very much…
No you're not 🙂
Ironically, it is these sorts of hair-splitting military/diplomatic decisions that Obama has managed better than almost anything else in his tenure. For all the drone strikes we have launched in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for putting boots on the ground in Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden, we are still on talking terms with them – strained a bit perhaps, but still working relationships.
Syria is not Pakistan – they're already not friendly – but if someone were to plot my limited and diplomatically touchy military response, Obama would be near the top of the list.
Come on David, I was told there wouldn't be any math story problems.
The question, David, is how many of its own citizens has the government of Sweden murdered with Sarin gas? Until you answer that question, Sweden v. U.S.A. analogies are wholly off-point.
Who decides that 1,000 killed with Sarin gas is cause (but wasn't for Saddam or Assad's father) but 100,000 civilians killed by conventional weapons is not.
My basic point was not is it ok however. My basic point is that firing those missiles by any reasonable IS an act of war. And we need to be prepared for the consequences.
Are conservative Republicans wusses? Not trying to be mean here, just looking at two items.
First, as the state trends liberal, the reaction of many is to carve out a seperate state rather than fight for their ideals in the political arena. Back when the Republicans controlled the state I don't recall Ft. Collins, Boulder, & Denver proposing to create a seperate liberal state. Instead Democrats stepped up and fought to win political contests across the state.
Second, there's the push for affirmative action to hire more conservatives at colleges. We do have a proud history of using affirmative action to help those in groups that have faced past discrimination get an equal shot. But how on earth do conservatives fall into that category? It's like they can't compete on a level playing field where they already have equal advantage, and need a permanent assist.
This strikes me as being similiar to kids who, if they don't have a gauranteed win, aren't going to play.
Whatever gets the job done. If bullying works, do it. If playing Calvin Ball is necessary to score points, do it. If knowingly lying about the facts or willfully ignoring the facts advances your position, do it.
And if getting stuck supporting a quixotic attempt to secede from the State of Colorado means you get more press time whining about your poor, poor neglected self, then go for it. Fundagelical Chrisitans have been whining about the oppression of the Christian faith here in the US for some time now – they've gotten good at it.
Of course, they're not in a minority (as the term is generally defined under legal standards). It's all about psychological power plays IMHO.
They KNOW they cannot compete on a level playing field, and as a result they —
There are many more examples, and all of them make the Republican Party and other rightwingers just look weak, plus they come across as crybabies.
Meet our Allies. This is from the front page of today's NY Times. It is from a video showing "Syrian rebel fighters standing over (7) captured soldiers while a commander, right, recited a verse just before the soldiers were shot dead."
Isn't there a global prohibition against executing prisoners of war?
I would ask our Congressional delegation who vote to support military action against Assad whose side are they on?
Sorry, I can't seem to copy the picture to my post.
Here is the link to the NY Times story and actual video showing the execution of seven Syrian prisoners of war: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hpw&_r=0
Watch it at your peril.
In the reply box, there's a little rectangular icon that you click to insert an image. It brings up a dialog box where you enter the URL (adnd other info).
Thanks. I think I was trying to copy what was actually a video. Let's see if I posted this picture correctly:
"Syrian rebel fighters" – it is estimated that there may be up to 1000 different "rebel" groups in Syria. Not all of them are friends, and the lack of unified and sane leadership among the rebels is among the primary reasons the US hasn't intervened more directly I believe.
If you're equating the pending vote on a response to chemical attacks to support of the rebels, I think you're mistaken. Some of those rebel groups would crack open the chemical munitions depot at the first opportunity, and aside from some saber-rattling folks like John McCain there is not support for an escalation in support of the rebels.
In a rational scenario we would act to depose a regime that used chemical weapons against its people. So, let's take out the Assad regime.
Oops, we can't do that because we might empower "up to 1,000 'rebel' groups in Syria. Not all of them friends…" So, now we are in Goldilocks world where we want to punish Assad, but not too much. And, of course, we don't want to trigger retaliation against us or our allies that would demand more action from us.
The point is that there is no proper US military response to Assad's actions. Figure out something else and move on. Like maybe pass a jobs bill here at home — just a thought.
Now come on congressman, Don,t be slow,
why, man, this is war a-go-go.
There’s plenty good money to be made,
supplying the army with the tools of the trade…
“Country” Joe McDonald. Circa 1969
But that's just the problem and we've been to this rodeo before. I completely understand the concerns of those who don't want to arm bad actors who hate us. On the other hand the article in the Denver Post today is heart breaking. There were interviews of Denver area Syrians, desperate for intervention and all of whom had lost family members, one man all three of his brothers.
Mahmoud Kassir, owner of the wonderful Littleton restaurant Damascus Grill where we've dined or ordered take out regularly for years, grew up in the suburb that was hit with sarin. It happened two miles from where his cousin lived but his 45 year old cousin was awakened around 3AM by a call over the mosque speakers urging anyone with a car to go to the rescue. He did and died. A thirteen year old female cousin had already been killed by snipers. All together 12 family members have now been killed. !2. And there will probably be more.
Story after heartbreaking story tells of our Syrian neighbors' family members dying back in their homeland, mainly shot by snipers while just venturing out to do the things people need to do to survive, not as fighters. Most, of course, killed by conventional, not chemical weapons. They feel abandoned and that the US has done nothing because Syria has no oil .
My heart goes out to them, especially to Littleton's own Kassir family, wonderful people, but it's very hard to see what kind of military intervention would do much good or anything but add another element to the civil wars, as it did in Iraq where our intervention led to well over 100,000 deaths by the most conservative estimates, most believe the number to be much, much higher, and where terrorism continues to today.
There truly seem to be no good options here.Yet what do we say to desperate, grieving Syrian-Americans, such good, hard working people who have come here to live the American dream? We're always treated like the most welcome friends at Damascus Grill. I don't know what to say to them.
BC – What do you say to the grieving families of the seven executed Syrian soldiers?
As you say, there are no good options here. Therefore, the US needs to stay out.
I say they weren't executed by people taking the risk of venturing out to get food for their families. But I take your larger point. If we can't do any good we shouldn't just blunder ahead. It sucks, though.
Here's something new. not just "Stand your ground" but "The Bush Doctrine". Oh brother.
BlueCat, You made that up, right? You did make it up, didn't you? It's funny if you made it up.
Also known as “the One Percent Doctrine”. See the excellent book by Ron Suskind with that title.
though I believe it should be known more as “the Cheney doctrine”.
Google it, darlin. Or click on According to Florida Today
.
Too bad he didn't notice how unpopular the Bush doctrine is today, judging by the American people's disapproval of pre-emptive strikes on Syria.
Seriously, that is sick and pathetic.
Here is an interesting article in US News and World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/30/the-war-powers-act-is-pretty-unclear-about-whether-congress-gets-a-vote-on-syria
It quotes Obama as saying in 2007 that the PResident does not have the authority to conduct military action absent Congressional approval.