Will a real pro-peace progressive finally step up to primary Rep. David Price??

After calling Rep. Price's office to find out how my Congressman is going to vote on the authorization to attack Syria, the staffer directed me to his House page for his official statement:


Sadly, our establishment-sellout-of-a-Congressman is yet again showing his true colors in supporting a military strike against a nation that hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us. With all the good, smart progressives in the 4th, when will someone finally step up and challenge this Military-Industrial Complex Democrat in the Democrat primary? Please!

Frustrated in the Fourth


David Price is the target?

Hey, I may not agree with David Price on the Syria vote but some on.....We need REAL Progressives for a lot of our districts before replacing David Price...............

Because, NOW, with all of the media attention and excellent reasons to oppose them - in the State Legislature OR in Congress...REAL Progressives ought to make just the right kind of contrast needed.....

Replace David Price ASAP

I was at one of his town hall meetings earlier this year listening to him justify slashing Social Security and Medicare.

Killing Social Security and Medicare are Hooverite positions; not something Democrats should accept from a Representative in a safe district.

Price should go.


David Price also voted against the recent NSA amendment

backed by Conyers and Amash, and voted for the unPATRIOTic Act along with the subsequent reauthorizations. His #1 corporate campaign contributor is Defense Company Northruppp Grumman. General Dynamics is in the top 10. In fact outside of public employee union money, defense companies are his top contributors.

The time to get behind a progressive alternative to David Price is now.

It's for the children?! Sorry,you'll have to do better than that

If you're going to argue for a military strike against a country that hasn't attacked us or threatened us, you'll have to do a lot better than that.

It's not even certain that the Assad government was responsible for this attack. Indeed, given that rebel forces (comprised largely of radical Sunni Islamists and Al Qaeda) have been losing and are vulnerable to Assad's air superiority, it doesn't even make sense. Why would Assad use chemical weapons when the rebels are losing anyway and when to do so would invite threats and condemnation? Have you read senior UN official Carla Del Ponte's report suggesting rebel complicity in the use of sarin gas?


Have you read AP reporter Dale Gavlak's articles using eyewitness testimony that also suggests rebel complicity?


Even US intelligence agencies say evidence of Assad's complicity in this attack isn't a "slam dunk."


Even if we grant that the Assad government is responsible for this chemical weapons attack, so what? How is a 1000+ deaths by gas more important than 10000s of deaths by machete or machine gun or fire? Should we now embrace the role of super globo-cop and intervene in every hot spot in the world where terrible things are done to other people?

All this attention on the Assad government, as bad as it is, diminishes the terrible atrocities done by many of the rebel forces. Did you know that the single largest rebel group, Al Nusra Front, is Al Qaeda in Syria? Do you know that they have been responsible for manifold civilian beheadings, and burning Christians alive in churches? Did you read about the very recent report in Kurdish Syria where a busload of nearly 30 civilians, including a 40-day old infant, were beheaded by Sunni extremists?

This leads into another point, which has to do with the problem of unintended consequences. By weakening Assad whether we like it or not we are strengthening the rebel opposition, and most especially Al Qaeda. We also risk a broader regional and even worldwide conflagration involving Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Is that what you really want?

At at time when domestic needs like education, healthcare and veterans benefits are getting short shrift, do we also really want to spend limited financial resources (which the DoD says we don't have) on another war of choice against a country that hasn't attacked us?

Americans are loudly saying NO to military intervention in Syria and so should David Price!

What war? This is about one strike.

What Americans say or think is not relevant. Or should foreign policy be decided by polls now? Those same Americans who voted for a Bush 3 times, who let the slavery and jim crow rule race relations for 300 years. You really think rebels concocted enough sarin to do this? That they were able to fake rocket launches from Assad's territory? The panic phone call is just made up? Assad must go or else the ME could well go Shiite which means bicycles should get very popular.

Machetes and machine guns don't work so well on the top of rockets

Your last name wouldn't be Chamberlain would it?

So you ducked the question. How about 6 million, would that be enough for you to want to intervene? Guess 100k just doesn't cut it.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

The "rebels" have gas, too.

The vast stores of gas in Libya under Ghadaffi are unaccounted for. The Turks have arrested several different groups in the rebel community with sarin gas in their possession, at least once in bomb ready form. There is no conclusive evidence who used it first, or second, or will use it the next time.

"Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana...

""This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency]," Interior Minister Muammer Guler said..."

We do know what bombing a populated area with cruise missiles, 100 missiles in 3 days, will do. If you don't go read Digby:

"Forte describes numerous NATO operations which, he argues, rose to the level of war crimes. For example, he discusses a NATO strike on a farming compound in the town of Majer on 8 August 2011. A Human Rights Watch investigation concluded that NATO fired on the compound twice, the second time killing 34 civilians who had come to look for survivors —a tactic familiar to those who follow US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—and found no evidence that the target had been used for military purposes. In its examination of five sites where NATO caused civilian casualties, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) found that at four of those sites NATO’s characterization of the targets as “‘command and control nodes’ or ‘troop staging areas’ was not reflected in evidence at the scene and witness testimony.”

That was Libya, and you want to do it again. Libya is not yet recovered, it is in chaos.

And will you quit with the Chamberlain BS? He negotiated the surrender of an entire country over to Nazi Germany. This situation has nothing to do with invasion of any sort. If you just mean 'appeasement' it still is BS, we do not know who, if any of these people are worse than any others, and none are innocent.

Not bombing Syria into the stone age is a different situation. Not being in a hurry to, like you are, seems a good idea. Read up on Libya, if you would please, and what our last incursion into "just air strike warfare" resulted in.

Answer my question

How many bodies does it take?

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Not One Body, Not The First. Nor The Last.

It takes being threatened by a situation that requires defense to deter. That is not the case now.

It takes exhausting all other options, like proving the allegations in the World Court (remember that?) and serious negotiations with the al Assad allies without pre-conditions.

It takes believing whatever action we, as a country take, will actually improve the situation. Ghadaffi was a monster who killed his own people. We bombed Libya exactly as you want to do. The current government cannot control the country enough to deliver oil, something everyone wants to happen.

If bodies is all you want, do you advocate returning to Iraq? Going into the Congo? Nigeria?


If not, why not?

Still ducking my question

How about we ask the Libyans if they would like Khaddafi back?

I see, you want to have a conference to exhaust all possibilities eh? ala Munich? Playing nice doesn't work in some situations. An emboldened Assad means the ME tilts Shiite and WMD much more likely to be used in a wide spread real all fired shooting war between the Shiite countries and the Sunni states and/or Israel. Taking out Assad reverses the dominoes and gives the Syrians a chance at self-determination, just like the Libyans have now.

Chamberlain failed to stand up to Hitler in 38. That led to the conflagration of WW2. The same thing applies today.

This issue does not involve other countries at the moment. It's a strike on Syria.

Still no number fron you. How many dead bodies does it take before you decide to stand up to a madman?

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

You are not paying attention. I answered you.

The number of bodies is not the measure of involvement. If it were, we should have attacked Israel over Palestine years ago.

You never answered my question about that one, either. Seriously, when do you think we should have bombed Tel Aviv? Dec. of 2008?

If not, why not?

That's like asking how many times a day do

you beat your children ... and has zero to do with Syria, 2013. And I must have missed the time that Israel used sarin on Palestinians .. or the time they killed 100k Palestinians in 2 years ... and the Palestinians Never have shot rockets into Israel.

I am done with the circular BS. and this thread. Bye.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

I am not buying the arguments for US action in Syria

This is why:
Quotes from US Senate testimony by Sec. of State John Kerry:

"Syria is important because quite simply, the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting," Kerry said in his opening statements. "If we don't take a stand here today, we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict in the future.

I do not agree with this assessment which is the assumption that underlies his entire argument.

"Why? Because as confidently as we know what happened in Damascus on August 21, we know that Assad will read our silence as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity.

I do not agree with this assessment, based on my readings of various reporters who have actually been to Syria and talked to folks on the ground there. I am inclined to believe those who say the rebel forces had more to gain from a chemical weapon attack than Assad. Also, there is no single set of "good guys" to support in this internal civil war.

Why is the US getting involved other than to save face for the Obama Administration?

Martha Brock

Why, indeed. Oil, anyone?



"JERUSALEM - Israel said Thursday that it has awarded the first license to drill for oil in the disputed Golan Heights to a local subsidiary of U.S.-listed explorer Genie Energy Ltd...."

Chaney and Murdoch sit on the board of Genie Oil. The area of the lease is in the Golan Hts. The real question is, why is Obama backing a war to support those two getting even richer?