I’ve been quiet about the Syria mess because I’m genuinely conflicted, undecided, and all that stuff. This isn’t Iraq since there’s a war already going on and international sources have been reporting Syrian use of chemical weapons for months. I’m not sure what good bombing will do but it’s possible that strikes could inhibit the Assad gang/clan/government from using chemical weapons again. In short, I’m glad that I don’t have to vote on this matter since it’s a close call.
That brings me to the veteran House member and newly elected Senator Ed Markey who voted “present” in committee because he, too, is conflicted right now:
Markey said he cast his equivocal vote because he wants more time to
analyze the situation. He said in an interview that the resolution was
written too broadly and allowed for the potential that the United States
would become far more entangled in the Syrian conflict. “My one concern
is that we not get on a slippery slope – that we understand all of the
steps that this action could lead to,” he said. “It’s about the
resolution being too broad. It’s about the need for more information.
It’s about my worry about a greater involvement in Syria.”Asked why he
did not just oppose the authorization, as did some of his colleagues who
had similar concerns, he said, “A no vote would have indicated I had
sufficient information on which to base the decision. Which I did not.”