[thouworm]

The language appears to address McCain's concerns about the resolution that he voiced Wednesday morning when he said he would not support the resolution as it was then written. McCain has consistently said he supports further U.S. intervention in Syria to topple Assad. The White House has repeatedly said that its goal with military intervention is not “regime change.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Wow! McCain put out quite the headline grabbers this morning, didn't he?

U.S. Senator McCain does not back Senate panel draft authorizing force in Syria

TIME: Rebuffing Obama, McCain a No-Vote on Syria: Courtship by the president comes up short...McCain Withholds Support on New Syria Resolution

Said on another thread: I question whether this is a blow and a rebuff to Obama. This may be more of the good cop/bad cop routine that Obama and McCain have been carrying on for weeks.
~~~~

He and Obama have been on the same page from the beginning.

Kerry/McCain doin the Lying Alinsky two-step on Obama's behalf, while Obama removes his lying self to Sweden to test how his new moderated-rage global talking-points ("I didn't set a red line, etc., etc.") will play out on the global stage.

Before we discuss where the Ship of State is heading in war with Syria and who knows else, maybe we should have a national discussion about mental illness. I'm getting the suspicion we are having a Captain Queeg moment---or two.

[Fred Nerks]

Thanks for the ping, I’m too disgusted to make a comment, but you can take it from me, your ‘boss’ would rather turn Damascus into Grozni, than have it discovered he planned this.

[maggief]

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was kabuki theatre at its best. They knew how this would play out, good buddies John & John. McCain would threaten to pull his vote unless his amendments were approved. Where did Coons backing suddenly come from? What sweet deal was he offered?

Predictably, McCain/(Coons) amendments were adopted ... by voice vote. No member would go on record.