The Globe’s Andrea Estes spent some time with our congressman this weekend as he decides if he will support or oppose military action in Syria.
[Joe] Kennedy, who is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has not made up his mind, but would not support anything that was “open-ended” or allowed for the use of US ground troops.
I can see why Joe Kennedy was hesitant to debate Sean Bielat.
http://newton.patch.com/groups/newton-republican-city-committees-blog/p/bp–blog-now-we-know-why-joek-iii-is-running-from-debates
I think Joe Kennedy should take his cue from Fast Eddie Markey and Barack Obama and vote PRESENT,
Our delegation in both the Senate and the House serve up more waffles than Aunt Sara’s pancake house.
Must say I’m surprised there aren’t any non-wise ass responses to this question.
Vote against intervention. There have been horrible acts on both sides of this conflict, there is evidence to suggest that rebels may also have been involved with chemical weapons, there is no clear good vs. bad in this situation.
He should do what the rest of the Massachusetts delegation should do: Vote against intervention. Nothing good will come of it.
I normally don’t agree with Gail Spector but I have to agree with her statement. I did not support Mr. Bush’s War when he was President and I don’t support intervention in Syria either.
Will it all be moot if Russia comes to the rescue?
This is challenging. I believe the key to Syria is Russia. Despite my opinion that Putin is unfit to lead, he is the one we need to engage. This hasn’t happened yet, at least not publicly, and I think is a huge miss.
Kennedy should be lobbying Obama to have constructive talks with Russia to contain and eventually disarm Syria with UN confirmation.
David,
Why is Putin “unfit to lead”? Because he stands up to the US, and makes Obama look like the neophyte that he is, except when he’s playing basketball or golf, or entertaining racist hip-hop stars? Putin is tough. He’s ex-KGB. He’s no-nonsense. He’s a true leader. Remember, he was elected also, even if you don’t like him. People often elect leaders in other countries who aren’t surrogates for the US.
The one who is “unfit to lead” is Obama, as he demonstrates repeatedly, this being only the most recent in a series of demonstration of lack of decisiveness.
My comments have nothing to do with Putin being a surrogate. It is his judgement, approach, and way of doing business I disagree with.
To truly understand Putin you need to know his background. It’s been well documented that from his childhood, he has had trouble working with other people. On the schoolyard, there were plenty of claims of bullying and fighting. Later on, he was completely indecisive as a former KGB agent. In fact, during the attempted Coup of 1991, he played both sides, claiming to be a hard-line Communist, but then, as it became clear the Coup would fail, sided with Sobchak in St. Petersburg just to keep his job. Later, when he figured out that nobody including Gorbachev was able to effectively lead, he began robbing Russia of millions of dollars, creating import/export deals that were fabricated. My guess is this is how he funded his Black Sea Palace with a value of $350M. If this isn’t enough, his perpetual intimidation and eventual jailing of businesspeople and political threats like Mikhail Khodorkovsky reak of dictatorship and, to his childhood, bullying. So you say elected as if to imply legitimacy? When you muzzle opponents by shutting down their rallies and putting them in jail – is that an election? And then, what about the suspicious deaths of Putin’s former colleagues including his former boss, Sobchak. Do these not raise any suspicions on your part?
There are many examples of Putin being an unfit leader.
I’m leaving out his most recent policy of allowing gays and lesbians to live in Russia, but outlawing their public display of affection. In this, it’s his country so I don’t expect him to be a surrogate. I simply disagree with his position.
Putin hasn’t just outlawed same-sex PDA. He’s outlawed any speech supportive of homosexuals. For example, there’s a serious risk that people could be arrested at the Olympics for wearing rainbow flags or saying openly that they are gay.
Joe Kennedy should do what Al Gore was alleged to have done. Joe Kennedy should offer to vote based on which side gives him the best opportunity for speaking time.
is PRESENT no longer the preferred vote on this topic??
Kennedy’s terms are ridiculous — and patently insulting. Basically, he’d only be for an act of war if there were no risk to the US — not open-ended, requiring no boots on the ground.
War involves risk. Risk that servicemen will die. Risk of unforeseen consequences. Risk that things will not go as we hope and will extend our commitment. Denying the risk, sanitizing war leads to the stupid invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vote no, Joe. People will die, probably in numbers larger than the victims of the atrocious chemical attacks. Our interests are not at stake. We will not be able to, pace McCain, affect the balance of the civil war in a way that is guaranteed to meet our fondest wishes.
David,
I don’t know if everything you say is true, or, if true, represents an accurate picture that takes into account all the facts about Putin. I don’t think Putin is an angel, by any means. I think he’s a leader who’s a lot more clever and decisive than Obama, who is no match for him.
And, let’s be honest, one can easily go into Obama’s past and see dishonest associations like Rezko, racist associations like Rev. Wright, scam organizations like Acorn, and a lot of other unseemly activities, as well as a clear inability to lead and a clear inability to put more than two words together intelligently without his twin teleprompters that force him to swing his head back and forth between them but never look into the eyes of us, the people watching him on the camera that’s directly in front of him.
I also think that after all Obama’s criticism of Bush, which was relentless even into the second Obama campaign, where it was irrelevant, now he feels it’s okay to enter Pakistan with a hit squad in order to kill Bin Laden, bomb the crap out of Libya in order to depose their leader and replace him with who knows what is there now, support Mohammed Morsi, who was in the process of creating an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt until he was thankfully deposed, and now wants to enter a civil war where both sides are really our enemies even without Congressional approval and bomb the crap out of who knows whom and who knows why, all because there is some evidence of the use of chemical weapons by someone, regardless of the hornets’ nest that this action will stir up, and this is a person who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And you criticize Putin?
Barry – contrary to your implications, criticizing Putin does not imply approving of Obama. I know a lot of people who dislike Obama who make the same criticisms of Putin as David did. Putin is scum of the earth, period.
mgwa, sounds like what David suggests could be happening. Putin suggests that Assad would give up his chemical weapons.
It will be interesting to see what they want in return. My guess is that they wouldn’t give up the weapons just to stop a US attack only now. I’m guessing there’s something else, like a promise to leave the civil war alone and not interfere on the side of the rebels at all. The chemical weapons are his ace in the hole right now. Everyone is afraid of them. If he gives them up, he’ll be much more powerless. His reason for using them, if he did, may have been to force a deal.
I just read about the Russian plan. Putin is on his way to coming out smelling like a rose. I’m frustrated that nobody in Congress pushed Obama to engage Russia and left an opening for Putin to pounce.
Yes, Barry – I think Obama should have taken advantage of the G20 conference to discuss a non-military option with Putin. Maybe he did? I don’t know.
Worse still, giving up on chemical weapons, at least on paper, gives legitimacy to Assad’s regime. And yes, it’s an opening for Russia, but I think it was a deliberate one created by the U.S (either by the Manchin-Heitkamp resolution or other diplomacy). I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that Congress timed its deliberation to take place during the G20 conference. Given the box Obama got himself in I think it’s the best possible outcome. The threat of force is still on the table for Iran, but Obama can come off as choosing the diplomatic solution. Everyone wins, except the Syrian people.