Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

What If Congress Says No? White House Won't Say

$
0
0

Administration officials refuse to comment on what Obama will do if Congress doesn’t authorize strikes on Syria. Officials say they’re confident Congress will vote yes on Obama’s war.

Mike Theiler / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama appears confident Congress will join him in calling for U.S. military attacks on Syria — but top officials in his administration won't say what happens if Congress doesn't authorize him to go to war.

Senior administration officials told reporters at a White House briefing Saturday that the administration will not even discuss the possibility that Congress doesn't endorse Obama's Syria plans, so confident is the administration that Congress will go along. That leaves a big question on the table after Obama's surprising Rose Garden announcement: What happens if Congress votes no?

The officials pointed to this line in Obama's remarks to make clear that the administration does not believe it's giving up what it sees as legal authority to attack Syria without Congress.

While I believe I have the authority to take military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate because the issues are too big for business as usual.

Decades of policy require the United States to respond to the use of chemical weapons, Obama said, and senior administration officials made it clear that they expect Congress to back them. But they also said Obama wasn't giving the legal power to authorize the Syria attacks back to Congress, leaving open at least the possibility that Obama could strike after the Congress decides not to authorize strikes.

The senior administration officials' comments came in a briefing in which participants agreed not to name the speakers or quote them directly.

In the view of the White House, the officials said, a Congressional vote against strikes in Syria would be an embarrassment to both Congress and the country. Interestingly, the officials said it was British Prime Minister David Cameron's public humiliation at the hands of the House of Commons last week that helped Obama make the decision to seek Congressional approval. Obam mentioned the British debate in his remarks Saturday.

"Many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action," Obama said. "Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective."

The president's decision to seek Congressional approval came Friday night, officials said, and was not prompted by any request from Congressional leaders. In the United Kingdom, after the the parliament voted against Cameron's call for strikes in Syria, the British leader abandoned the idea. It's not clear that Obama would do the same thing, and administration officials said Saturday that, legally, he doesn't have to.

But while the legal logic of that may be in debate, it's difficult to see the political path to bombing Syria after a congressional rebuff.

LINK: Obama: I Have Decided To Bomb Syria, But I Want Congress To Weigh In First

LINK: President Obama’s Big Syria Power Giveaway


View Entire List ›


Hawks And Doves Team Up To Fight Obama's Syria Strikes In Congress

$
0
0

The unusual coalition includes neo-cons, libertarians, and anti-war Democrats.

President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, delivers a statement on Syria in the Rose Garden Saturday.

Kristoffer Tripplaar/Pool/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — President Obama's call for Congress to vote on striking Syria appears likely to result in an unexpected and fluid coalition of "no" votes, with libertarian Republicans linking up with anti-war Democrats and even neo-conservatives.

Everyone from Sen. Rand Paul to Rep. Barbara Lee to Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham — all of whom are thanking Obama for putting the proposed military action to a vote — have said they'll likely be opposing the President. They all have different reasons, and many say it's too early to predict the outcome.

"This coalition has come up and I think it's not partisan — it'll be on the basis of how people view public policy and I think from that standpoint it is harder to make a judgement on where this will go," said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington State Democrat. "You can't go straight along partisan lines, I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think this will be a very divided vote."

"I used to vote with Rand Paul's father Ron on all kinds of stuff, that's not new," McDermott said. "Experiences make you very wary of making a snap judgement on a situation like this, I don't think that's possible here. Use of the military in my view should be the last resort."

"I think it's premature to determine how the vote will go," said Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California. "We need to understand the ramifications, the possible unintended consequences and the regional conflict breakdown."

"I'm not surprised there was such a broad coalition calling for the president to have a vote," Lee, who sent a letter with 50 other Democrats to Obama demanding a vote earlier this week, said.

On the Republican side, Rand Paul put out a statement commending the president for asking for a vote.

"I'm encouraged President Obama now says he will fulfill his constitutional obligation to seek authorization for any potential military action in Syria," Paul said. "This is the most important decision any President or any Senator must make, and it deserves vigorous debate."

A senior aide to Paul who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a coalition may form between his wing of the party and the establishment against the type of action being proposed in Syria.

"I could see where you have congruence between some of the more hawkish neoconservative people who have been saying don't just launch the cruise missiles, if we're going to do this we should go all in," the aide said. "And the people that have been much more cautious about engaging and saying no one has been making a compelling case about this being in our national interest — they would agree as well that punitive strikes are not what we need to be doing."

"Obviously we'll have more clarity on this when [Paul] is on 'Meet the Press' tomorrow and it's an evolving situation," the aide said. "He's been pretty clear that he does not believe that as it stands this meets the litmus test of being in the United States' national interest. I don't know what Obama can say unless something changes on the ground that would change this among the Rands, the Cruz's, the Levin's and others who have raised this issue. It's a hard sell for them."

Cruz released a statement on Saturday mirroring Paul's stance.

"I remain concerned that the mission proposed by the President is not in furtherance the vital national security interests of the United States," Cruz said.

"Assad's murderous actions have claimed the lives of more than a hundred thousand of his own people, which is a humanitarian tragedy," Cruz said. "But our chief strategic concern should not be international norms; it should be preventing the chemical weapons from falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists who might use them against us and our allies."

Some of the loudest Syria doves in Congress thanked the president for the vote and reiterated their opposition to military action on Saturday, including libertarian Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who tweeted, "Pres Obama hasn't come close to justifying war in #Syria. I look forward to this debate. Pres must comply w/ vote of Congress; not optional."

Rep. Trey Radel of Florida, who signed Rep. Scott Rigell's letter to Obama asking for a vote, said Congress didn't know enough about the administration's intelligence on Syria to be able to vote.

"We have not only a war-weary United States we have a lot of members of Congress that have deeper questions than have been asked in the past," Radel said. "We've heard a rhetoric for decades about promoting freedom. We've seen where that has gotten us."

"I know that Democrats and Republicans are going to ask tough questions of this administration and we are not just going to go along to get along with the president saying essentially we need to step into a civil war," Radel said.

The most surprising element of the nascent "no" vote coalition is hawkish establishment Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who released a statement on Saturday saying they would not support limited military action in Syria — because they want more.

"We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," Graham and McCain said. "Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing."

Sen. Marco Rubio echoed McCain and Graham, saying in a statement that "a limited attack would do nothing to change the dynamics of the conflict, but could trigger a broader and even more dangerous conflict in the region."

"Given those harsh realities, if the President concludes that military action is warranted, instead of having administration officials leak details to the press, he must clearly lay out to Congress and the American people why this is in our national interest, what the goals of this action are, and how the military action he is taking would achieve this objective," Rubio continued. "I am deeply concerned that so far he has failed to do this. Military action, taken simply to save face, is not a wise use of force."

Cory Booker Walks Back Opposition To Military Intervention In Syria

$
0
0

After making an impassioned case earlier this week against another war, the senate candidate defers to Obama’s judgement. “I expect that the president will clearly delineate what the strategic objectives are,” says Booker.

Mel Evans / AP

LONG BRANCH, N.J. — On Wednesday, Cory Booker's position on military intervention in Syria was clear: He opposed it.

In an interview on HuffPost Live, Booker said that he was "profoundly war weary"; that the United States "should not be going to war" or "unleashing missiles"; and that he disagreed with President Obama, his biggest booster, on whether the use of chemical weapons automatically requires a military response.

"I'm not drawing the red line that I know the Obama administration did," he said.

Booker, the Newark mayor and frontrunner to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg in the U.S. Senate this October, is already a Democratic Party star. And he emerged that day, somewhat unexpectedly, as one of the party's biggest names resisting action in Syria — just as Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were readying an aggressive case to do the opposite.

But by Friday, as the White House made a public push for a strike on Syria, Booker softened his anti-war language and emphasized that, as a candidate, he does not have access to the intelligence briefings offered to sitting members of Congress.

By Saturday morning, after the administration declassified information about the gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people last Wednesday, Booker said his "default position [was] peace and non-violence always," but suggested that he'd wait to see "what the president decides."

And by Saturday evening, after Obama announced that he would seek Congressional authorization for the use of military force, Booker released a statement that praised the president for consulting Congress and urged members to return to Washington "immediately to consider this matter."

But Booker remained noncommittal as to whether he supports or opposes military intervention, and did not say how he would vote on the issue as senator, unlike his Republican rival Steve Lonegan, who said Saturday afternoon in a statement that he would cast a vote against the measure.

Booker did vow that, if elected, he would "always approach the question of military intervention as a last resort," but he declined in the statement to weigh in specifically on the White House's support for the use of force in Syria. He stressed instead his belief that the administration must lay out "clear, achievable objectives and a credible path to achieving them."

"As part of the process of working with Congress," Booker said, "I expect that the president will clearly delineate what the strategic objectives are, and what limited military action will specifically achieve in Syria."

The Newark mayor noted again that "as a candidate for office," he does not have access to classified information.

Booker's reaction to President Obama's announcement, delivered Saturday afternoon in the Rose Garden, reflected a more circumspect approach to the crisis in Syria relative to the impassioned case he made to HuffPost Live against another war. And it may have offered a glimpse at some of the challenges he'll face if elected — he is the overwhelming favorite to win — when his bold rhetoric meets legislative reality.

Even as he walked the Jersey Shore boardwalk with Rep. Frank Pallone at a campaign event Saturday morning, before Obama's remarks, Booker maintained that he hasn't changed his anit-war stance. "My default position is peace and non-violence always," he said, during a brief interview in Long Branch. "Any action should be the last possible choice that we make."

Asked about the declassified intelligence report that detailed the death toll of the Aug. 21 gas attack — 1,429 people, at least 426 of whom were children — Booker called the figures "very compelling" and acknowledged a moral obligation to act in some form.

"Obviously, there needs to be a response, but the question is what is it, and is it going to be perfectly attenuated to the outcomes we want," he said. "All these things, I think, are in the president's mind, and we're going to wait and see what decision he makes."

Hillary Clinton Stays Quiet On Syria

$
0
0

The former Secretary of State, who once pushed to aid and arm the Syrian rebels, has yet to weigh in on Obama’s plan for military intervention. A “lasting regret.”

Matt Rourke, File / AP

When the White House debated this week over the appropriate response to the chemical attack in Syria, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not release a comment. When the administration declassified an intelligence report Friday detailing the death toll — 1,429 people, including 426 children — Clinton stayed silent. And Saturday afternoon, when President Obama announced he'd "take action against Syrian regime targets," Hillary Clinton again released no comment.

The nation's former top diplomat — and until recently a key voice in favor of intervention in Syria — has remained notably quiet on the subject, even as the country seems poised on the precipice of a missile strike that remains contentious among members of both parties and lacks strong public support.

In brief remarks delivered from the Rose Garden, President Obama maintained he has the executive "authority to take military action," but said he will put the matter before a vote in Congress next month regardless.

Hillary Clinton's position on both White House decisions, however, remains unclear.

Although she has yet to weigh in on the seemingly imminent military intervention, Clinton's tenure in the State Department suggests she'd be fully in line with the president on his decision to move forward with what he has called a "limited, narrow" attack. (It was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who in June compared the administration's once reticent stance toward Syria to the 1999 intervention in Kosovo, intimating that Obama might look "like a total wuss" if he didn't step in.)

While at State, Clinton was more than active on crisis in Syria: She voiced frequent condemnation for President Bashar al-Assad, worked to pledge tens of millions in humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, strengthened sanctions against Assad's regime, and at times took a harder line on the country's civil war than the president.

In the summer of 2012, Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus proposed that the U.S. arm and train the Syrian rebels fighting to overturn Assad, but the plan was "rebuffed" by the White House, according to a report in the New York Times detailing Clinton's four-year term at Foggy Bottom.

In an interview with ABC News in January, Clinton said the Assad regime could not be toppled without the use of what she called "a recognized force." She added that Syria's "use of chemical weapons" would cross "a red line," citing the Obama administration's oft-repeated phrase.

Later in the month, days before Clinton's exit from the State Department, she was asked in a live-streamed Town Hall interview about her "lasting regret" as secretary.

Clinton was quick to cite the loss of lives in at U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but also mentioned the ongoing civil war in Syria, where over 100,000 lives have been lost, according to the United Nations.

"When you do these jobs, you have to understand at the very beginning that you can't control everything," Clinton said. "There are terrible situations right now being played out in the Congo, Syria, where we all wish that there were clear paths that we could follow together in the international community to try to resolve."

Every day at State, she said, was a struggle to "end crises."

Now Clinton is thought to be weighing another bid for president in 2016, and her campaign will likely hinge on her legacy as Secretary of State at a time of turmoil in the Middle East.

Clinton's spokesmen did not return requests for comment Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening.

The Best Of The Internet's Reaction To Obama's Plans To Bomb Syria

How To Offend Vegans And Not Really Apologize, By A United States Senator

$
0
0

“So sorry I offended so many vegans. In Missouri we raise pigs and cattle and chickens to eat them.”

So it was just a normal weekend for Senator Claire McCaskill and her 100,000 twitter followers.

So it was just a normal weekend for Senator Claire McCaskill and her 100,000 twitter followers.

Then she decided to let the world know about her son's birthday! Awww.

Then she decided to let the world know about her son's birthday! Awww.

And then this pig carcass appeared.

And then this pig carcass appeared.

Then this:

Then this:


View Entire List ›

Samples From Syria Tested Positive For Sarin, Kerry Says

$
0
0

“Hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of Sarin,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday on “Meet The Press.” “This case is building and this case will build.”

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that samples collected from victims of the after the reported Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria have tested positive for the nerve agent Sarin.

"In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of Sarin," Kerry, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" said. Sarin is an odorless, colorless nerve agent interferes with nerve signals to the muscles.

"Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used these weapons in time of war," Kerry said. "This is of great consequence to Israel, to Jordan, to Turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons."

Kerry's remarks come a day after President Obama said that he would seek Congressional approval to strike against Syria. A preliminary U.S. government assessment found that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack earlier this month, including at least 426 children and put the blame on the Syrian government for the attacks.

Obama's Decision To Seek Syria Strike Support From Congress As Told By 20 Foreign Front Pages


11 Times Congress Has Declared War On Another Country, And Why

$
0
0

“Congress shall have power to … declare War” Congress hasn’t actually declared war since World War II.

Right here the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power ... to declare war."

Right here the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power ... to declare war."

So Obama's decision to punt to congress on the decision for military action in Syria has a solid Constitutional basis.

So Obama's decision to punt to congress on the decision for military action in Syria has a solid Constitutional basis.

So here are the few times Congress has used that power:

After the American revolution there were many unresolved conflicts with Great Britain.

After the American revolution there were many unresolved conflicts with Great Britain.

These included trade restrictions brought on by Napoleonic wars, the forced service of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy and British support of American Indian tribes among others.

slate.com

On June 17, 1812, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Great Britain.

On June 17, 1812, Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Great Britain.

The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 19-13.

senate.gov


View Entire List ›

Syria Splits The Professional Left

$
0
0

Progressive leaders and organizations are happy Obama is going to Congress — but to do what? “We are not united as a community,” says Jim Dean.

Craig Ruttle / AP

WASHINGTON — When President Obama called on Congress to authorize the attacks on Syria he wants, progressive groups' first reflex was to mobilize against more American military action in the Middle East.

But for many groups, their second impulse was — not so fast.

"I think the progressive community is quite split," said Mike Lux, a longtime liberal activist and CEO of the consulting firm Progressive Strategies.

In particular, progressive groups are universally thrilled that Obama has decided to ask for Congress' input on military action. But the left is not united about what it wants Congress to do next.

Some groups have come out strongly against military action in Syria and are preparing to lobby Congress to vote against authorization. But many of the leading progressive organizations are conflicted, either still figuring out their position or punting on the issue entirely.

In an extraordinary email to its supporters Saturday afternoon, Democracy For America — a group founded from the remnants of Howard Dean's 2004 anti-war presidential campaign — told its supporters its members were too divided on military action in Syria for DFA to take a stand on it one way or the other. After listing a sampling of DFA member voices expressing all manner of opinions on Syria from interventionist to pacifist, the group said it is not going to lobby Congress on how to vote on Obama's war authorization.

"Thoughts are still coming in, but after our team reviewed responses from over 40,000 DFA members...only one thing was clear," reads the email from Jim Dean, Howard's brother and DFA's chair. "We are not united as a community. And if we tried to call for one united action in response, we'd be dividing our members -- instead of uniting behind them."

The only answer, Dean wrote, was to help progressives lobby Congress in whichever way they choose.

"We're going to offer something different than we normally do," he wrote. "Instead of advocating one course of action over another, I want to provide you with the resources to choose your own action based off of the three most common themes repeated throughout the responses."

The list includes "Tell Congress not to use military force" and "Help support the efforts to protect civilians and treat victims of the conflict" as well as "Put your own idea for action in the hands of our members" through DFA's "member generated campaign platform."

DFA isn't the only progressive group to decide not to decide when it comes to lobbying Congress on the war authorization. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a group that doesn't shy away from publicly calling and even primarying Democrats when they don't act sufficiently progressive for the PCCC membership and leadership, strongly praised Obama for asking Congress' opinion on war in Syria. But the group doesn't have an opinion on what Congress should do yet.

"Think a lot of people are taking this in," PCCC co-founder Adam Green said in an email interview. "Getting [our] head around it all."

Green sent a link to George Packer's "Two Minds On Syria" piece from last week to illustrate the progressive mindset. "See this great piece in New Yorker?" Green wrote.

Other groups and progressive leaders don't feel the internal conflict. MoveOn, the grandaddy of online progressive action and a consistently anti-war voice during Iraq, is firmly on the side of voting down Obama's war in Syria.

"MoveOn members are opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria and are making their opinion known to members of Congress," group spokesperson Nick Berning said.

It has allies. CREDO, a San Francisco-based progressive activist group best known recently for promising mass civil disobedience if Obama approves the Keystone pipeline, is preparing its own campaign to lobby Congress against backing military action in Syria. That campaign is expected to begin next week.

CREDO and MoveOn will have some allies in Congress. On Sunday afternoon, as members of Congress were gathering for a briefing on Syria on Capitol Hill, Florida Democrat Alan Grayson tweeted out a link to his website DontAttackSyria.com and vowed to urge his colleagues to vote against the war authorization.

Skepticism Runs High On Capitol Hill After Classified Syria Briefing

$
0
0

“There’s a lot of memories of another time when the president’s people came in and said they had slam-dunk intelligence and that’s not an episode most members ever want to repeat,” said Rep. Jim Himes.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (C) speaks to the media after attending a closed meeting for members of Congress on the situation in Syria at the U.S. Capitol in Washington September 1, 2013.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress who attended a classified briefing Sunday remained highly skeptical of voting to approve a military strike on Syria, and said the administration would need to be more specific about the exact scope of the attacks in the coming days.

Congress is not set to reconvene in Washington until Sept. 9th, but roughly 60-70 representatives and several senators came to D.C on Labor Day weekend to attend the briefing. The meeting came a day after President Barack Obama announced he would seek congressional authorization for the attacks.

"I'm still very skeptical about the President's proposal. It is not clear to me that we know what the result of this attack would be, or whether it will be effective," said Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, who serves on the House intelligence committee. "And in that room, there's a lot of memories of another time when the president's people came in and said they had slam-dunk intelligence and that's not an episode most members ever want to repeat."

There was widespread concern among members, even those generally supportive to striking Syria, that administration's draft resolution was far too broad and open-ended. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, said after meeting that the language would "be amended in the Senate" to tighten the wording of the authorization.

"It is a broad document and given the specificity with the president has been speaking on this, it is a little difficult to reconcile what he's asked for with the document that is now before us," said GOP Rep. Scott Rigell, who led more than hundred members of Congress to sign a letter asking the President to seek a congressional vote before striking Syria.

Some of the president's closest congressional allies expressed hesitancy about a resolution that did not specify an end date.

"I myself have questions about any authorization for the use of force that goes beyond discreet task of sending a strong message that the use of chemical weapons is against not only international law but all moral authority on this planet," said Rep. Xavier Becerra, the chairman of the Democratic caucus.

Becerra said he did not believe that Democratic leadership would pressure their members, or "whip" them, into voting for the resolution.

"Anytime you talk about the use of military force, I don't believe that any member can be whipped into doing one thing or the other. It's a vote of conscience and I think this is the supreme vote any member of Congress can take," he said.

On the Sunday talk show circuit, Secretary of State John Kerry said he believed that Congress would ultimately back the administration in authorizing a strike against Syria, especially in light of evidence that victims of a chemical weapons attack in the country tested positive for sarin.

"I don't believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," Kerry said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, said it was incumbent on the administration to help members explain to their constituents why Syria's use of chemical weapons compelled America to act.

"That's something we need to be able to explain," he said, noting he had not decided if he would vote to strike. "That has to be a part of the education. Congress people are listening to their constituents, constituents need to know the significance of the chemical weapons."

Beyond the broad worry that the strikes would not be as limited in scope as the President has suggested they would be, some Republicans fretted that Obama might go ahead with a strike anyway even if Congress votes down the measure. But the White House hasn't said what they might do in that scenario.

"It's interesting the president hasn't made congress relevant in his administration until now," said Rep. Dennis Ross, a conservative from Florida. "So, if we don't approve it he might consider us irrelevant again."

In Their Districts, Members Of Congress Demanded A Syria Vote

$
0
0

A quiet groundswell in the districts preceded the president’s reversal. Talk of impeachment.

Congressman Jim Bridenstine speaks on Syria at a forum.

youtube.com

Dozens of Republican members of the House of Representatives spent the month of August promising their constituents they would fight President Obama's attempt to strike Syria without their approval, a quiet national campaign that may have helped lay the groundwork for the president's surprising concession of power Saturday.

I spent much of the last month watching recorded videos and live streams of the "town hall" meetings that members of Congress of both parties traditionally hold in their districts during the August recess. I watched more than 48 hours of video in total, featuring nearly 50 members of Congress, most of them Republicans. And the overwhelming message for President Obama was clear: We want a vote on Syria.

In the town halls, in which members typically addressed conservative audiences, intervention appeared almost universally unpopular. Members of Congress who said they opposed intervening were met with loud applause.

"His authority to go to war does not come from the United Nations. It does not come from NATO, it does not come from any international organization, it comes from the United States Congress," said Oklahoma Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine to a standing ovation, his second time hitting that applause line.

In a parking lot town hall in Arkansas 2nd district, Rep. Tim Griffin took a constituent's question: Why hadn't Congress approved the Syria mission with "our Navy in harms way."

Griffin responded that he believes President Obama ought to get approval from Congress, using Libya as example he said "the president ought to follow the rules."

"I don't want to intervene at all," said Kansas Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder said to loud applause at a town hall at a local high school. "But I certainly think I should be consulted, and the American people should be consulted before missiles start firing in their name."

"Right now is the time to assert our responsibilities in the Constitution and make sure that whatever happens, Congress approves it," said Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson a constituent after a town hall who said intelligence on Syria chemical weapons use could be wrong.

"Attacking a sovereign country without authorization from Congress I think is simply wrong," said Iowa Republican Rep. Tom Latham at a town hall last week.

Speaking at a town hall on a community college campus Florida Republican Rep. Rich Nugent drew applause from a crowd for saying he was opposed to Syria intervention.

"Tell me why this is in America's best interest to get involved," Nugent said. "Why should we spend a nickel? Why would we put any of our airmen, sailors, Marines and soldiers at risk?"

Some Democrats heard the same from their constituents. At a town hall in Cliffside, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell found an audience almost unanimously opposed to any U.S. action in Syria.

"We shouldn't be involved in Syria whatsoever," a constituent said to applause from the audience. "We are not the world police."

"I understand what you're saying. I understand we don't want to get involved in other people's problems," Pascrell, who supports a U.S. military response to Syria said. "When chemical weapons are used, then it's a whole different ballgame."

In the local press, members of Congress also made clear they did not want to intervene without a voice in the matter.

"The founders I think were right, in our founding documents they said that the solemn decision on the use of force, it was the people's representatives that had that responsibility," New York Republican Rep. Chris Gibson said on PBS NY's New York Now. "They need to go -- they need to listen to their constituents and then they need to communicate in debate, then to have a vote on record on whether or not we are to use force."

New York Democratic Rep. Paul Tonko said in the same segment that Congress should "play green light-red light here." He added that "the powers of the purse rests with Congress."

"The U.S. Constitution requires for military action that Congress have a role. Additionally, I think the American people need, through their elected representatives, to fully understand the consequences of any action in Syria," South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson said repeatedly throughout August.

"Given the perceived hesitancy of the United Nations and some of America's closest allies to support an attack on Syria, I urge the president to engage in no military action until Congress has reconvened in 10 days and has approved any military action to be taken, if any," Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks told an NBC Alabama affiliate.

"It's in the best interest of the president and Americans for President Obama to go to Congress to get support," said fellow Alabama member Robert Aderholt in the same segment. "He cannot order military strikes without Congressional approval."

"I think for the sake of the country, and the sake for representative government that we have the members of House of Representatives take their votes," said progressive Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva to Tucson's CBS affiliate.

Democratic Florida Rep. Kathy Castor said to a local station Bay News 9 "the Constitution and the war powers act requires it, that we see all the evidence and debate it and then authorize any use of force going forward."

"If the president is going to fire at hostiles, he needs to convene us. I'm not saying a declaration of war, but authority from Congress to move forward," said Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie to a local affiliate of ABC News.

"The president will be so much better off, the country will be so much better off if he comes and has a fuller debate and get Congress' agreement with taking action here, rather than a few conference calls which seems to kind of get the feel of a 'check the box' mentality," Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry told PBS in Oklahoma.

Some members of Congress, speaking in town halls and local radio and TV interviews, flirted with the idea of impeaching the president should he take the country to war without the approval of the country's legislative body.

"If a president on his authority and in direct contravention of the Constitution plunges our nation into war, if that's not impeachable, what is," asked California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock in an interview with a local Fox affiliate. "The Constitution does not require consultation. It does not require informing Congress. It requires Congress' specific act to authorize a war."

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky speaking with a conservative Internet show host said: "I would like to see a vote on this before we take any action. We certainly need a vote," adding in the "harsh fact of the matter is there aren't enough votes of the matter in the Senate to affect an impeachment of the President."

"A bill I put in said any president who bypasses the Congress to bomb another country without provocation, and this is actually in the Constitution, than they should be impeached," said Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina to a local radio station.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune Republican Sen. Mike Lee "hinted" that President Obama could be impeached for attacking Syria without authorization, citing statement by Vice President Joe Biden as a Senator in 2008 saying just that.

Intervention in Syria has been shown to be overwhelming unpopular in the United States with some polls suggesting as few as 9% of Americans support the idea.

Obama To Meet With LGBT Activists While In Russia

$
0
0

After canceling a bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin while there for the G20 summit, Obama may anger the Kremlin further by meeting with Russian activists — including from LGBT groups.

Jason Reed / Reuters

Following his cancellation of a bilateral meeting with President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Barack Obama may infuriate the Kremlin further by meeting Russian human rights activists, including LGBT rights groups, during his upcoming trip to St Petersburg for the G20 summit.

Four Russian non-governmental organizations told BuzzFeed Monday they had been invited to the meeting, scheduled for this Thursday at St. Petersburg's Crowne Plaza Hotel. The groups include veteran human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid NGO director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out, a St. Petersburg-based LGBT organization. Another local LGBT group, the LGBT Network, is believed to be attending, though director Igor Kochetkov declined to comment to BuzzFeed, saying that he had been "asked not to say anything."

Election monitoring group Golos is also believed to have been invited, though BuzzFeed could not reach its director or deputy director to confirm. Russia's justice ministry forced Golos, which used to receive funding from USAID, to disband this summer under a law on "foreign agents" that many believed was created specifically to target the group.

Obama's trip to Russia for a summit of the Group of 20 industrialized nations comes amid a deep rift between the US and Russia, not least over the countries' competing stances on Syria. Obama was due to hold a one-on-one meeting with Putin in Moscow before heading to the summit, but abruptly called that off last month in the wake of deteriorating relations and Russia's sheltering of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Putin has repeatedly accused members of Russia's civil society as being in the pay of the U.S. State Department.

Thursday's meeting is not unique or unprecedented. Obama met with civil society and opposition activists during his last visit to Russia in 2009. George W. Bush met with NGOs during the G8 summit in 2006.

It is believed to be the first time Obama has met with members of the Russian LGBT community. Asked about Russia's anti-LGBT law in August, Obama told Jay Leno that he had "no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them."

A U.S. Embassy representative did not return several requests for comment.

McCain: "If Congress Were To Reject Striking Syria, It Would Be Catastrophic"

$
0
0

Step one of the President’s newly announced plan to seek Congressional approval for military action in Syria was— of course — to talk to John McCain.

Follow NowThis News on Facebook and Twitter.
The NowThis News app is live -- and it's FREE! Download it.

Watch Anthony Weiner Yell In A Jamaican Accent From His Giant Float In The West Indian-American Parade

$
0
0

“Anybody here from Jamaicaaaaa?”

From a giant floated devoted entirely to his mayoral bid, Weiner asked the crowd if they were from various countries. He received cheers that were barely audible over the horns and sirens from the DJ behind him.

youtube.com

He gets in to it even more as he starts swaying with the music and singing along.

youtube.com

Another parade-goer captured more of his dancing from a different angle.

instagram.com


View Entire List ›


Hillary Clinton's First Tweet In Two Weeks Isn't About Syria

$
0
0

The former secretary of state has remained silent about intervention in Syria, but she did tweet following Diana Nyad’s record-breaking 110-mile swim. “Feels like I swim with sharks - but you actually did it!”

Hillary Clinton in 2011

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Hillary Clinton has been noticeably silent as much of the world has been debating President Obama's plan for military intervention in Syria, but she did pop up on Twitter Monday to congratulate Diana Nyad after the 64-year-old's grueling 110-mile swim from Cuba to Florida.

Hillary Clinton's tweet noted that Nyad's achievement puts Clinton's own career — particularly her rough schedule during her tenure as secretary of state — into perspective.

As secretary of state, Clinton had pushed to aid and arm the Syrian rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.


View Entire List ›

In Frenzied Final Campaign Push, Christine Quinn Fights For Her Political Life

$
0
0

With days to go before the New York City mayoral primary, Quinn is anxious but resolute. “You know, you don’t end up the first openly gay and woman speaker of the City Council ‘cause you’re the frontrunner.”

Richard Drew / AP

Christine Quinn's hope lies in a place where boiled beef tongue sandwich is a lunch special.

There, in a pocket of Northeast Queens near the banks of Lake Success, rise the edifices of the North Shore Towers co-op apartment complex. It is a gated community with its own power plant. Wattage here must nosedive at first frost when a stooped conga line of snowbirds flock back to Boca and Boynton Beach. But now on this last day of August, the mercury hovers at 80, the grandkids are at the pool, the halvah is stocked at the grocery store, and a stumping Christine Quinn is chirping to everyone — the with-it and the not-so-with-it — "How are yooooouuuuuu?" She says it with perhaps even more volume than the Council Speaker normally wields, and not because she's unsure which ear is the good ear of the person whose hand she is shaking.

Quinn, a big time player in New York City government for the past decade, is having a political near death-experience. For months, polls had her winning the Sept. 10 Democratic mayoral primary. But the cover of the free tabloid amNew York that morning is screaming "Quinn's Big Drop." Its new survey has her in third.

"The Bills" — Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and 2009 nominee Bill Thompson -- are ahead, though not with the 40 percent needed to avoid a runoff. So you could forgive Quinn if she puts a little more oomph into her pitch to the ladies stooped over their platters.

"I welcome the opportunity to be the fighter that I am," Quinn tells me in an interview as she tries to spin her numbers. "You know, you don't end up the first openly gay and woman speaker of the City Council 'cause you're the frontrunner. I got that position — won it — as the underdog. And I'm going to fight over the next 10 days and get into the runoff because New Yorkers deserve a fighter as mayor."

I followed Quinn around for hours that day, riding with her and her wife, Kim Catullo. I couldn't help noticing the anxiety etched into Quinn's face — a sentiment other reporters have noticed as well. I've pondered whether Quinn will end up another Bella Abzug — a woman New York politician who climbed to historic heights, but not quite as far as she aimed. The track record of City Council Speakers winning as mayor isn't good. Both Quinn's predecessors tried, and failed.

At North Shore Towers, Quinn has plenty of support — if she didn't, she could really kiss Gracie Mansion goodbye. During the last election, the Towers' district voted more than two-to-one for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Many pro-Bloomberg Democrats like to imagine Mayor Quinn as Bloomberg's fourth term, give or take a few tweaks. The problem is that in the Democratic primary most people are turned off by what New York has become, with its obscene cost of living and a police force some say harasses black and Hispanic men only to instill fear. In fact, 65 percent of likely Democratic voters say the city needs to go in a new direction, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

Quinn now has a tough mission: She needs to convince disillusioned Democrats that the city needs an overhaul, even as she winkingly reminds Bloomberg's fans that she's been a loyal partner of his in government. She needs to get people to forget her complicity in overturning two voter referenda that barred politicians from serving more than two consecutive terms (thus allowing Bloomberg to serve a third term). She has to tout her record to those who like New York now. And she has to get those people like the ones eating lunch in North Shore Towers not to forget to vote.

***

A day later, Bill de Blasio's family sits in the front pew of a Brooklyn Baptist church, rocking to gospel music. The candidate is shuffling along, all 6-foot-5 of him, in a grey suit with a double-vented blazer trendier than anything I'd seen him wear before. The polls have boosted de Blasio's swagger. As for style, though, dad has nothing on his son, who turns 16 this week. Dante de Blasio is in the church, and so is his famous afro — a mass of hair that many believe will launch a hundred thousand votes.

Those hankering for something new and authentic may have found it in Bill de Blasio. It's odd, considering he's been around New York politics for decades. He ran Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign13 years ago (before he was marginalized at the end). Then he served as a councilman representing Park Slope for eight years. Four years ago, he nabbed the office of public advocate, a touchy-feely sounding job that basically has no power, but is first in line in succession should the mayor drop dead or resign.

Now, people are talking about de Blasio like he's Obama and Quinn is Hillary. For that, de Blasio may want to mail two Starbucks gift cards as thank-yous: one to Sydney Leathers and another to his son's hairdresser.

A little refresher: For months, de Blasio languished in the also-rans column. Then, on July 30 Leathers emerged from Indiana in the appropriately named website TheDirty.com, famously revealing transcriptions of her little online sex chats with Anthony Weiner. Crucially, their chats happened after Weiner resigned from Congress, and later told everyone things were better.

Polls show de Blasio picked up the votes Weiner lost: outer borough working-guys, Manhattan liberals. Around the same time, de Blasio, who is married to a black woman, cast Dante in the best television spot this election cycle, in which he tells the camera why his dad is so great. Not since Shirley Temple have curls been so telegenic.

Back at the church in Brooklyn, even the preacher is a fan.

"Brother Dante!" he calls from the pulpit at the teenager, Chris Smith of New York magazine told me (I was schlepping my camera and couldn't write it down). "Keep wearing that Afro, man!" After the laughter abated, the clergyman rubbed his own bald pate and told the congregation, "I'm gonna grow mine on the inside."

No polls have been done, but there seems to be a racial divide as to whether de Blasio is exploiting his son, with white people I talk with in the affirmative camp, and African-Americans saying he isn't. It is indisputable that de Blasio is taking advantage of Dante's fame -- and his family's post-racial modern look. As they emerged from church, I asked de Blasio for a quick interview for NY1. His family moved aside, to apparently let the candidate do the talking.

Now, de Blasio may have been calling them over to keep him company. But before I hit record, he motioned for the trio to stand by him. As it turned out, Dante's head ended up un-mistakenly in the frame.

Quinn has been knocking de Blasio's experience, so I asked him for a response. He rattled off his government-and-politics-only resume, then turned to his rival.

"But what Speaker Quinn did was she worked as Mayor Bloomberg's chief ally to implement a series of policies -- many of which added to the inequalities of this city," he said. "And Speaker Quinn served Mayor Bloomberg's interest, she served the real estate industry's interest, she served the big business community's interest, but not the people's interest. And I think in the end, the people of the city are looking for fundamental progressive change."

Leaving aside that de Blasio had been plenty helpful to real estate and big business while in the council, it's a concise message where Quinn's is more nuanced, and more tied to people's ambivalence about the Bloomberg years. Leading a legislative body through compromise and wheeling and dealing is also less sexy than taking strong stands in a bully pulpit.

"It's zeitgeist versus zeitgeist, and people are looking to make a move," said David Birdsell, dean of Baruch College's School of Public Affairs. Of those considering de Blasio, he added: "It's the vibe, it's the feeling. It's do I want to move past the Bloomberg years and embrace the promise of a new tomorrow?"

***

Rounding out the trio is Bill Thompson, who doesn't ooze zeitgeists and new tomorrows. A bit more pizazz four years ago, and Thompson could have denied Bloomberg a third term. (To be fair, inaccurate polls showing more of a Bloomberg blowout also seemed to depress turnout). Thompson declared himself a contender shortly after losing, but another four years doesn't seem to have imbued him with pep. There are some exceptions — like when Thompson has talked about African-Americans as victims of criminals, and not just the police.

Still, Thompson is in the mix. His crack demographics unit targets growing constituencies, like modern Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn. The teachers union is endorsing him. Some voters also reward him for fighting the good fight against the Bloomberg piggy bank. Thompson is also the only African-American candidate, and black voters could account for about a third of voters.

"I am confident in the end, that black voters are going to support my candidacy and do that strongly, not based on the fact that I'm black — based on the fact that I've been there on the issues," he told me, after his own turn addressing a church in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. "Issues of employment, issues of job creation, issues of safety, issues of education and I've been there and out there on those issues not for a few years, but for decades."

Polls were dodgy four years ago, so you'll find no predictions here, even as everyone thinks de Blasio, Quinn and Thompson are really the only contenders as of now. To cover myself, I should note that City Comptroller John Liu is still the darling of the far-left and his polling among Asian-Americans seems low. And then there's Weiner. What can I say? His absence would make life dull indeed for those who treasure tabloid headlines. (A recent kerfuffle about cats on the subway was a gimme).

Despite their competing goals, Quinn and Thompson are pretty civil to each other on the stump. I think de Blasio has appalled them both. Thompson is particularly galled that de Blasio calls himself the only candidate with a plan to rid the city of the "stop and frisk" police technique. Quinn thinks de Blasio's is an empty (extra tall) suit. Should de Blasio make the runoff, I am interested to see if Quinn and Thompson link up, endorsing the winner among them.

***

Back in Northeast Queens, Quinn completed her rounds with voters. She's been doing pool tours, and after North Shore Towers we headed to two others off Bell Boulevard. Oddly enough, the swimmers and sunbathers don't seem to mind Quinn showing up to talk politics as they gallivant in their bathing suits, although they didn't exactly appreciate me with my video camera.

Outside one pool before my time with her ended, Quinn and I stopped to chat, joined by her wife, Catullo, who has played an increasingly prominent role on the campaign trail now that the race is tight. I thought Catullo would be scripted and leery, but she charmed me with her calm and dry humor.

I showed both the amNew York cover, the one with "Quinn's Big Dip," talking about the poll. Quinn and I listened as Catullo opined.

"You know, when we started out on this whole path, I remember we sat down with the family and Chris gave us a talk about the fact that polls are going to go up and down. And we all looked at each other like — and she said 'No, I'm telling you in this business, that's what happens,'" Catullo said. "So I actually am ready for it, and knew it was going to happen, and I also — I know when I am out with her and I see people just wanting pictures and just wanting to talk about the excitement of her campaign."

A moment later, they were back in the black SUV, destination unknown, at least to me.

Josh Robin is a political reporter and anchor for NY1, New York City's all-news station. You can follow him on Twitter @joshrobin.

Soldiers' Backlash To Uniformed Facebook Protesters: "Stop Being A Pussy And Serve Your Nation"

$
0
0

The war on social media.

Members of the American armed services are taking to social media to voice their opinions in the debate over American intervention in Syria.

Members of the American armed services are taking to social media to voice their opinions in the debate over American intervention in Syria.

facebook.com

This is a photo of one of the first uniformed dissenters. It was posted on the Angel Clark Show Facebook page on Aug. 31.

This is a photo of one of the first uniformed dissenters. It was posted on the Angel Clark Show Facebook page on Aug. 31.

Via Facebook: AngelClarkShow

The photo of the anonymous Naval officer went viral, getting shared over 20,000 times this weekend.

The photo of the anonymous Naval officer went viral, getting shared over 20,000 times this weekend.

Via Facebook: AngelClarkShow

Many war foes praised the man for being brave by hypothetically refusing to follow orders.

Many war foes praised the man for being brave by hypothetically refusing to follow orders.


View Entire List ›

"The Dictator" Mocked The U.N. For Their "Brave Inaction Over Syria"... In 2012

U.N. Secretary-General: Use Of Force Lawful Only If Security Council Approves

$
0
0

“That is a firm principle of the United Nations.”

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: "Use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and or when the Security Council approves such action."

View Video ›

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images