A Nexus Between The DCCC And Miss McConnell-- Here's What's Wrong With Inside The Beltway Politics
Basically the memo comes from a mirror image place of fear that has kept Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from taking a stand on bombing Syria, something his Tea Party opponent, Matt Bevin, is taking him to task for (though, not his far more cautious Democratic opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes; she's as incomprehensible and afraid to stand for anything as McConnell). Bevin says he's "offended by all these guys that have been sitting around that place gathering dust and moss for decades who are utterly unwilling to lead on and be thoughtful on things that are of this magnitude and this importance... These old fuddy-duddy moss-covered relics are just hiding behind their inactivity in the hopes of getting six more years on our dime. And I think the people of Kentucky, certainly, are fed up with it." Sounding not unlike Alan Grayson (D-FL)-- at least on this issue-- Bevin makes a lot of sense on Syria: "The reason I am opposed to it [U.S. military involvement in Syria] is we have absolutely no business whatsoever being in Syria. There is no military reason for us to be involved. There is no security risk to the United States. There is nobody on either side who is or has the potential to be a true ally of ours because they don’t even remotely believe in what we believe as it relates to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, human rights, basic human dignity. We have no business in being there."
“The idea that we have an administration and we have silent ‘leaders’ like Mitch McConnell who are just spineless and refuse to come out and state what they believe, who when they do come out in the case of the administration they say, ‘Well we don’t intend to have any kind of a regime change,’ then what the flying flip are we even going in there for?” Bevin said.
“Really and truly, what is the point if we don’t have an end goal, if we don’t have a purpose, if we don’t have a mission, why would we be sending our weapons, which could potentially lead to our people being involved in this, destroying infrastructure and destroying people in another nation when we don’t have any knowledge of why we’re doing it?" he asked. "Because of some arbitrary line that the president drew in the sand and is now trying to pretend that the world drew in the sand? Really? What a cop out.”
...“One of the greatest reasons we hear in Kentucky for why we need six more years of Mitch McConnell is that he’s so influential,” Bevin said. “He’s so powerful. He’s a leader. And it’s so good for those of us in Kentucky."
"But the reality is when asked if they can name any one thing that that leadership and influence has done for Kentucky, any one thing that power has done for Kentucky, nobody can think of anything because the answer is nothing," Bevin claimed. "The only person who has been served by that influence and power is Mitch McConnell. He is a spineless person and he is unwilling to lead."
"It isn’t specific to any party. There is amazing dearth of leadership on both sides of the aisle. These are people whose primary mission is to keep getting re-elected," Bevin suggested. "When it’s hard and when it’s tough, and when someone truly needs to stand up and lead, they’re silent. They’re missing in action.”
Now, back to the secret DCCC memo to its candidates, all of whom have been revoltingly mum on the number one issue that voters in every single district are talking about. You looking for leadership on the Syria crisis? Don't expect any from any of the DCCC cardboard candidates. So while you have independent progressives like Nick Ruiz (D-FL), Carl Sciortino (D-MA) and Tom Guild (D-OK) speaking out clearly and in a principled way against war, the DCCC is encouraging mealy-mouthed candidates to hold their fire and keep their heads down. "In short," their wishy-washy memo to candidates begins, "President Obama wants Congressional approval to strike with precision-guided missiles. This action would be a response to a targets in Syria August 2013 chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian military during the course of Syria’s civil war. The Obama Administration asserts that it must uphold international norms against the use of chemical weapons to reduce future use."
Then comes the facts and figure for candidates who don't know the difference between Syria, Tanzania and Honduras: "Syria is about the size of North Dakota with roughly 22 million inhabitants. The majority of them are Sunni Muslim. Syria is a predominantly Arab country." No, really... that's an exact quote from the memo. Then comes all the propaganda about how Assad used sarin gas on his own people and killed all those children, no less a bold-faced lie than the manufactured "evidence" the Bush regime offered to justify their predetermined attack against Iraq. The "evidence" is anything but clear about who used the chemical weapons and it seems to point to agents provocateurs dead set on persuading Obama to attack Syria. But reflexive warmongers like Steve Israel insist on twisting the facts for hapless candidates, sending them out like lambs to be slaughtered. (And, yes, Steve Israel helped push through Bush's authorization for the use of force against Iraq, even though a big majority of House Democrats opposed him on it. He shouldn't be allowed to use the DCCC for his personal agenda of war.) After pages of worthless propaganda, the DCCC memo end with the arguments, pro and con, for its candidates to consider:
• "The U.S. has to attack to uphold the longstanding international norm against the use of chemical weapons so that they aren’t used in future wars."
• U.S. credibility is now on the line: The U.S. President declared the use of chemical weapons to be a red line, and has also asked Congress publicly for support. To deny the Commander in Chief the authority undermines our nation. (Also stated as: U.S. failure to follow-through questions American willingness to engage and gives an appearance of weakness.)
• "The U.S. should stand against the use of chemical weapons generally on humanitarian grounds. Related argument: the U.S. has a history of moral authority we risk losing if we do not act in Syria."
• "The U.S. will intimidate Iran by attacking, which helps Israel (and the U.S.) primarily by reducing the confidence and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) manufacturing intentions of Iran, Israel’s most powerful declared enemy."
• "If we don’t attack, Assad may use these weapons again. Consequences include that more Syrians die from chemical weapons as opposed to traditional weapons, and that the use of chemical weapons could trigger a refugee crisis that is greater than would otherwise occur if the war continued only with traditional weapons. The refugee crisis threatens to destabilize our allies in the region, including Jordan and Turkey, a partner in the NATO alliance that we are also part of."
Against giving authority for an attack:
• "Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States and an attack is not in our interest from a national security or a financial perspective; our excessive debt has already cut funding for the military and domestic programs significantly, and the U.S. experience in limiting costs for Middle East interventions shows we tend to underestimate."
• "There are other ways to put pressure on Assad other than a direct missile strike. This is a premature decision until additional diplomatic options have been pursued." Also stated as: We should go through the U.N. since we are not directly impacted.
• "An attack could create more instability in the region and makes regional American military reinvestment (troops on the ground) more likely. U.S. Secretary of Defense Kerry has not ruled out ‘boots on the ground’ in a long-term scenario resulting from this action."
• "The U.S. lacks a clearly defined and obtainable objective, and the plan lacks any element of surprise."
• "The U.S. did not intervene when chemical weapons were used by Iraq against Iran, or when Iraq used them domestically against the Kurds. A precedent is not created if we do not attack."
• "This threatens American personnel in the region: Iran ordered militants in Iraq to attack US interests (our embassy primarily) in Baghdad should the US carry out military strikes in Syria."
• Potential negative consequences: Our strikes could result in: heavy civilian casualties, Assad killing more civilians with chemical weapons, Syrian army sympathizers attack Americans somewhere else in the world, Assad falls and the chemical weapons end up in the wrong hands, escalation across the board. In addition, the chances that the attacks are so slight that Assad survives them easily and appears strengthened before the world.
Please watch the video above of Grayson questioning Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry. This back and forth between Hagel and Grayson was pretty shocking, especially to anyone who recalls the fraudulent "evidence" manufactured by the Bush Regime to persuade Congress into authorizing an attack on Iraq.
HAGEL: What transcripts are you referring to?
GRAYSON: The transcripts that were reported that took place after the attack in which the government has suggested that they confirm the existence of an attack, but actually it’s been reported that Syrian commanders expressed surprise about the attack having taken place, not confirmed it.
HAGEL: Well, that’s probably classified. Congressman, I’d have to go back and review exactly what you’re referring to.
GRAYSON: Well, you will agree that it’s important that the administration not mislead the public in any way about these reports, won’t you?
Please login first in order for you to submit comments