Aid to Syria Rebels Passes House
Obama's plan gets approval.
A House divided along unusual and unpredictable lines voted Wednesday to authorize the training and arming of Syrian rebels to confront the militant group Islamic State, backing President Obama after he personally pleaded for support.
The 273-to-156 vote was over a narrow military measure with no money attached, but it took on outsize importance and was infused with drama. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, actively and strongly backed the legislation, and both sought to portray it as a modest measure. The Senate hopes to pass it as soon as Thursday.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Washington/Obama logic - support for the Syrian rebels in the initial stages wouldn't have changed anything, yet now three years after the start of this mess it's different...because they've evolved. Yet, our support apparently wouldn't have made a difference in the early stages where as it will now?
The idea that we know who the 'good guys' are here is so painfully laughable that it's hard to believe any rational human being could believe it.
And what's worse - the Democratic vision of half-'intervention' in which they refuse to do what's necessary to succeed while getting us into messes, or the Republican where they are the nail and every foreign conflict is a nail? One destabilizes countries immediately (Libya), and the other leads to a slow decline into the abyss (Iraq).
You can't fight wars based on political convenience. If you are going to start killing, it should be for something that's worth a full commitment. If we aren't willing to do what is necessary militarily (which we aren't), then don't even get involved. It's just going to be another black-eye for this country's world image.
my buddy's mom makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her payment was $16443 just working on the computer for a few hours. i was reading this............
http://www.Jobs400.com