Obama tries to build support for Syria strike

Proof, show us proof! Otherwise be silent!

We have no money for education, infrastructure, or health care, but we have enough funds to declare war.

Let's see now, when Bush went to the US Congress and NATO and got support for war after 9/11, Democrats largely supported him. Except of course when the going got tough - at which time they turned on him and called him a "liar". That worked well for them politically and damaged Bush. Given the total lack of international support and given that a sizable number of Democrats will vote against Obama whenever his resolution comes up in Congress anyway, I hope Republicans return the favor and hang him out to dry. See what happens when a political party cynically uses national security for political ends. Karma is a b****.

(Supreme Dictator) Obama is just "hell-bent" on another "war" or "kinetic military action (Libya War)"

Leave Syria alone. Bombing won't fix anything. it is already destroyed, why get involved further?

For Obama to all of a sudden kick the decision back to Congress, he is hoping they vote NO. Because it would be in his favor because it is a mess. He wants to be relieved of this thing because it has turned out to be a massive egg on his face. It will be a suicide mission if the Congress votes YES.

So how did he win his Nobel peace prize? ;)

"Congress will again thwart him and make him look weak around the world."

But the Russians, the Chinese and everyone else don't look weak, right?

It sounds like we have some Trump University poly sci degree holders. Wars instigated by elected politicians with finite political careers are always bringing politcal realities to bear on national security issues. Bush wanted a better safe than sorry approach, acted as the decider, and has to deal with the damage to his legacy. Wolfpack expects the opposition party to never complain about the lack of progress in Iraqistan because it will damage their new age karma man.

The usual hawks like McCain are probably looking at reports that Syria holds the world's largest chemical weapon stockpile in moving his support to Obama's camp. He doesn't have to worry about running for president again, but the young stars of the GOP like Rand Paul have to oppose in order to safeguard their political careers.

The very real probability that all hell would very likely suddenly break loose may have given him pause. But give him a break, It's really hard to see through that cloud of hubris from where he sits.

TorafusuTorasanSep. 03, 2013 - 10:40AM JST

It sounds like we have some Trump University poly sci degree holders

You made me laugh. Thanks. I will tell your post to my wife at dinner table.

The usual hawks like McCain are probably looking at reports that Syria holds the world's largest chemical weapon stockpile in moving his support to Obama's camp. He doesn't have to worry about running for president again, but the young stars of the GOP like Rand Paul have to oppose in order to safeguard their political careers.

Spot on. By next week, we will be able to see who would be running for the next presidential election. I can name a few already.

Those politicians who favor attacking Syria in my opinion are warmongers. When they took the oath of office, they are required to uphold & defend the Constitution. As time passes, the Constitution is becoming a worthless document. We've got money to support wars and dole out money to countries like Israel & Egypt and at the same time are planning to reduce benefits for seniors & ignore hell out of taxpayers. Also, the Government is planning on reducing medical benefits on 171,000 military retirees.

The usual hawks like McCain are probably looking at reports that Syria holds the world's largest chemical weapon stockpile in moving his support to Obama's camp.

McCain is up for a war anytime and anyplace so has long been a proponent of massive U.S. intervention in the conflict, but I do credit him with at least a consistent and constitutionally sound plan of readiness. The issue with Obama and his anti war history perspective is making an ultimatum on chemical weapons, one year passes without an apparent iota of forethought on responding to a major event in Syria, completely flying off the handle with a potentially catastrophic solution cobbled together at the last minute and dramatically reversing course the eve before it is to commence. A strategically appalling approach to say the least.

I want to see all the kiss a$$ who give this guy the Nobel peace prize without proving himself.

If he go to war take the prize back from him?

Kerry's statement is, as always, at best a half-truth.

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for the chemical weapons attack, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Jean, do you have that website available for us?

Yes, global. Here's the source:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

From the writers and reporter on the ground.

Let's see now, when Bush went to the US Congress and NATO and got support for war after 9/11, Democrats largely supported him.

Two major differences: Bush, by committing allies and moving vast amounts of material and personnel even before the Congressional votes had taken place, made it a fait accompli; also, tremendous pressure was put on congressmen to the point where their loyalty to America was questioned if they voted against the war.

We aren't hearing, "Why do you hate America, Rand Paul?" now, are we?

Obama has vast precedent to lob off a bunch of missiles even without giving Congress a thought, yet he insists on receiving its blessings. Methinks those like Paul and Cruz might worry more about the precedent Obama is setting and how it will effect the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. It is THEY who will look bad no matter how they vote; meanwhile, Obama is putting to rest the idea of his "imperial" presidency.

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for the chemical weapons attack,

Not true:

Dale Gavlak assisted in the research and writing process of this article, but was not on the ground in Syria.

Gavalak helped write the article, but he was not on the ground. Also, while Gavalak is an AP freelance reporter, this was a Mint Press News exclusive. While it certainly does raise questions, it is not confirmed information.

" While it certainly does raise questions, it is not confirmed information."

It's certainly more "confirmed" than the information from Kerry"classified".

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for the chemical weapons attack, Not true:

Indeed: "Mint takes a similar approach to the Syrian story, with a reporter in Ghouta–not Gavlak but Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student–who "spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents."

Link: http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/

The US should stay out of people's problems, especially if there is no oil! The US is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and I feel sorry for Obama. He seems a good man.

I guess Barak wants to play with the "big boys".

There is no threat to the US. There is no "right side" of the Syrian civil war. Both seem equally nasty and brutish. Syria does not have any vital natural resource. The US has no reason to get involved, especially with no contingency plans of what to do if the strike that the President wants doesn't have the desired effect. Why waste good missiles for no reason? 99,500 Syrians died and the US did nothing. Suddenly, 500 are gassed and the US shudders to life. It makes no objective sense.

I saw a hilarious photo the other day. It was dated 2009, and showed then Senator John Kerry and Mrs. Kerry having a very sweet and intimate lunch with Assad and Mrs. Assad. Jump forward to today, and suddenly (according to SecState Kerry) Assad is the Middle East's version of Hitler. Reminds me of the infamous Don Rumsfeldt/Saddam Hussein handshake photo.

Jean,

It's certainly more "confirmed" than the information from Kerry"classified".

Neither is very convincing to me. There should be no attack without convincing evidence.

VRWC,

I saw a hilarious photo the other day. It was dated 2009, and showed then Senator John Kerry and Mrs. Kerry having a very sweet and intimate lunch with Assad and Mrs. Assad. Jump forward to today, and suddenly (according to SecState Kerry) Assad is the Middle East's version of Hitler. Reminds me of the infamous Don Rumsfeldt/Saddam Hussein handshake photo.

Or, when President Obama shook hands with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi during the G8 summit on July 9, 2009 in L'Aquila, Italy. Or more recently when President Barack Obama shook hands with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during their meeting at Quba palace in February 2011.

Kind of like the Midas touch in reverse.

" Kind of like the Midas touch in reverse."

More like the Godfather's kiss.

" Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student–who "spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents."

Yes, that's correct. I oversimplified. The freelancer did the actual speaking.

The Mint piece certainly raises more questions than any of the Western governments who favour an attack are prepared to even consider.

Didn't Mr. Obama vote against and take a stand against military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq as a Senator from Illinois? Didn't he "win" his 2009 Nobel "Peace 'Prize'" because of his "potential" for making peace internationally? Didn't Mr. Obama also state that he'd "sit down and talk" with those with whom we had differences?

Has he sat down with Bashaar Assad? Has he sat down with the Rebel Leader? Have they all sat down together and discussed and reasoned out their differences, as Mr. Obama promised --- LECTURED, even --- Americans he'd do??

After the fiasco in Egypt, Libya, sending troops to Uganda, leaving troops in Iraq, continuing the "war" in Afghanistan, sending drones to make strikes in Pakistan, and now this Syrian Venture, one would think it was well past time "President" Obama turned that Nobel Peace Prize and Medal and Monetary award backto the Nobel Council with a public, written apology.

It ought to tell him something when our closest allies (like Australia, Britain, et. al.) won't touch this with a ten meter pole, but France is all in.........

JeanValJeanSep. 03, 2013 - 01:55PM JST

Yes, global. Here's the source:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

From the writers and reporter on the ground.

Thanks for the weblink. I have read it. If the article is true and accurate as claimed, then we need to reevaluate the situation differently.

Jean, by the way, who owns the Mint Press? Is it a part of University of Minnesota Journalism Dept? What I am trying to do is to see the credibility of research and news. Appreciate your feedback, Jean.

How come the Russians and the Chinese aren't trying to build support on a military strike in Syria?

@Jason: The short answer to all those questions is no, he didn't. I'm not going to research for you, just recall a few things from memory. First, there were US senators like Russ Feingold who voted against giving Bush carte blanche to go to war, but Obama was not even elected to the US Senate in 2001. He held state office in Illinois at that time. Next, he won the Nobel Peace Prize because he was nominated and the all-Scandinavian prize committee liked him the most. Not sure why being a potential peacemaker is a bad thing. Which brings us to leaving troops in Iraq. The campaign promise to end US troop commitment in Iraq has been withheld, unless you are saying that America has retained its military in Iraq against all news to the contrary.

@Laguna:

Bush, by committing allies and moving vast amounts of material and personnel even before the Congressional votes had taken place, made it a fait accompli;

So can the same can be said about Obama as he has already begun moving assets into place in the Med? If the opposition backs down then there is no need to use the repositioned military forces. Hussein didn't back down and neither will Assad. The one difference here is that Bush actually had a large number of allies; at this point Obama has only two - France and Turkey - and they have not committed any military forces at this point.

also, tremendous pressure was put on congressmen to the point where their loyalty to America was questioned if they voted against the war. We aren't hearing, "Why do you hate America, Rand Paul?" now, are we?

Once the nation has voted to go use military force there absolutely should be pressure placed on members of Congress to not actively oppose the military while it is in action. If Rand Paul attempts to undermine American support for our military during military operations I am sure he will get some "hate" thrown his way - and deservedly so.

Obama has vast precedent to lob off a bunch of missiles even without giving Congress a thought, yet he insists on receiving its blessings.

Yes he does. Yet in his mind military actions that are not purely defensive require international support. Once Britain voted down support of military action Obama realized there was no international support to uphold his ad-libed "red-line". It was only when he found himself on his own - like some Cowboy looking for a fight - that he decided to ask Congress to lend at least some legitimacy to his actions.

Methinks those like Paul and Cruz might worry more about the precedent Obama is setting and how it will effect the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

As Libertarian conservatives I think they are already worried about the balance of power between the two branches of the US government,

Obama is putting to rest the idea of his "imperial" presidency.

When Obama begins implementing the law as written when it comes to issues like immigration, environmental and health care regulations (among many others) then you might be on to something.

@Tora

Wolfpack expects the opposition party to never complain about the lack of progress in Iraqistan because it will damage their new age karma man.

That's not really what I said now is it...

wolfpack,

"Let's see now, when Bush went to the US Congress and NATO and got support for war after 9/11, Democrats largely supported him. Except of course when the going got tough -"

Any politicians foolish enough to dissent were screamed down as unpatriotic terrorist-huggers by you and yours.

Seriously, your attempts at re-writing the post 9/11 hysteria are especially comical from those that watched you write it all those years ago.

I can't think of anything good coming from the US getting involved in Syria. In fact, I'd like somebody to tell me just what positive thing the US would accomplish by attacking Syria. You can call me clueless but I can't come up with one.

They target is not Syria but Russia :)

Madverts:

Any politicians foolish enough to dissent were screamed down as unpatriotic terrorist-huggers by you and yours. Seriously, your attempts at re-writing the post 9/11 hysteria are especially comical from those that watched you write it all those years ago.

I am not re-writing anything. I was simply making the comment that if Congress approves Obama's attack on Syria then members of Congress should put their partisanship away while the military is in action. It is Congress that approved the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would be Congress that would approve taking military action against Syria (although Obama says he doesn't need such approval he does need a little CYA). It is unfortunate that Democrats used the setbacks in Iraq against their political opponents. I don't think Sen Paul or Cruz should do the same when it's a Democrat president.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8796779.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/AssadKerrydinner.jpg

While Obama was doing that, someone had dinner with our Syria dictator!