Obama seeking congressional OK for Syria action

President challenges lawmakers to consider 'what message will we sent if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price'
Associated Press
Aug 31, 2013

Delaying what had loomed as an imminent strike, President Barack Obama abruptly announced Saturday he will seek congressional approval before launching any military action meant to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds.

With Navy ships on standby in the Mediterranean Sea ready to launch their cruise missiles, Obama said he had decided the United States should take military action and that he believes that as commander in chief, he has "the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

At the same time, he said, "I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective." His remarks were televised live in the United States as well as on Syrian state television with translation.

Congress is scheduled to return from a summer vacation on Sept. 9, and in anticipation of the coming debate, Obama challenged lawmakers to consider "what message will we sent if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price."

The president didn't say so, but his strategy carries enormous risks to his and the nation's credibility, which the administration has argued forcefully is on the line in Syria. Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that Syrian President Bashar Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.

Nor was it clear what options would be open to the president if he fails to win the backing of the House and Senate for the military measures he has threatened.

Only this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat when the House of Commons refused to support his call for military action against Syria.

Either way, the developments marked a stunning turn in an episode in which Obama has struggled to gain international support for a strike, while dozens of lawmakers at home urged him to seek their backing.

Halfway around the world, Syrians awoke Saturday to state television broadcasts of tanks, planes and other weapons of war, and troops training, all to a soundtrack of martial music. Assad's government blames rebels in the Aug. 21 attack, and has threatened retaliation if it is attacked.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he was appealing to a Nobel Peace laureate rather than to a president, urged Obama to reconsider. A group that monitors casualties in the long Syrian civil war challenged the United States to substantiate its claim that 1,429 died in a chemical weapons attack, including more than 400 children.

By accident or design, the new timetable gives time for U.N. inspectors to receive lab results from the samples they took during four days in Damascus, and to compile a final report. After leaving Syria overnight, the inspection team arrived in Rotterdam a few hours before Obama spoke.

The group's leader was expected to brief Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday.

Republicans generally expressed satisfaction at Obama's decision to seek congressional support, and challenged him to make his case to the public and lawmakers alike that American power should be used to punish Assad.

"We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised," House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other House Republican leaders said in a joint statement.

"In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people."

New York Republican Rep. Peter King was among the dissenters, strongly so. "President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents," he said. "The president doesn't need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line."

Senior administration officials said Obama told aides on Friday night that he had changed his mind about ordering a strike against Syria without seeking congressional approval first, making a final decision after a long discussion with his chief of staff Denis McDonough.

It was unclear what pressure Republican or Democratic lawmakers had brought on Obama, if any, although dozens have signed letters calling on him not to act unilaterally.

But had he gone ahead with a military strike, he would have become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans. Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursuing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens.

For now, it appeared that the administration's effort at persuasion was already well underway.

The administration plunged into a series of weekend briefings for lawmakers, both classified and unclassified, and Obama challenged lawmakers to consider "what message will we send to a dictator" if he is allowed to kill hundreds of children with chemical weapons without suffering any retaliation.

At the same time, a senior State Department official said Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Syrian Opposition Coalition President Ahmed Assi al-Jarba to underscore Obama's commitment to holding the Assad government accountable for the Aug. 21 attack.

While lawmakers are scheduled to return to work Sept. 9, officials said it was possible the Senate might come back to session before then.

Obama said Friday he was considering "limited and narrow" steps to punish Assad, adding that U.S. national security interests were at stake. He pledged no U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria, where a civil war has claimed more than 100,000 civilian lives.

In Syria, some rebels expressed unhappiness with the president, one rebel commander said he did not consider Obama's decision to be a retreat. "On the contrary, he will get the approval for congress and then the military action will have additional credibility," said Qassem Saadeddine.

"Just because the strike was delayed by few days doesn't mean it's not going to happen," he said.

With Obama struggling to gain international backing for a strike, Putin urged him to reconsider his plans. "We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world, said Putin, a strong Assad ally. "Did this resolve even one problem?"

Even the administration's casualty estimate was grist for controversy.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that monitors casualties in the country, said it has confirmed 502 deaths, nearly 1,000 fewer than the American intelligence assessment claimed.

Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the organization, said he was not contacted by U.S. officials about his efforts to collect information about the death toll in the Aug. 21 attacks.

"America works only with one part of the opposition that is deep in propaganda," he said, and urged the Obama administration to release the information its estimate is based on.

Obama was buffeted, as well, by some lawmakers challenging his authority to strike Syria without congressional approval, and also by others who urged him to intervene more forcefully than he has signaled he will.

In the hours before Obama's Rose garden announcement, he was joined at the White House by top advisers.

Vice President Joseph Biden, who had planned a holiday weekend at home in Delaware, was among them. So, too, were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials.

In the famously flammable Middle East, Israel readied for the possible outbreak of hostilities. The Israeli military disclosed it has deployed an "Iron Dome" missile defense battery in the Tel Aviv area to protect civilians from any possible missile attack from next-door Syria or any of its allies.

Missile defenses were deployed in the northern part of the country several days ago, and large crowds have been gathering at gas mask-distribution centers to pick up protection kits.




Re: "You want him to attack"

You don't support your president putz?

He thought that the UK would go along. He (bleeped) up. :)

The Big Dog's back

bush would have used chemical weapons on us if we would have started a civil war.


Re: "bush would have used chemical weapons on us if we would have started a civil war."

The U.S. has no chemical weapons putz.

Stop It

Yeah, right. And Wylie Coyote never ordered parts from ACME.


Well if Winnie read it on line, HAS to be true, as long as it fits his beliefs. Yes, Winnie, you can bet your a-s we do have chemical weapons stored somewhere.


Re: "we do have chemical weapons stored somewhere."

You mean that the Obama Admin. lies putz?

The Big Dog's back

Russia and the United States, which declared the largest amounts of chemical weapons are in the progress of destruction and had processed 57% and 90% of their respective stockpiles.[6][13] The deadline set for both countries of April 2012, however, was not met.



Re: "The deadline set for both countries of April 2012, however, was not met."

So Pres. Obama hasn't kept his part of the deal and you support the use of chemical weapons putz?


You really believe we don't have chemical weapons? Are you really that unintelligent?


Re: "You really believe we don't have chemical weapons?"

You mean that the Obama Admin. lies?


lets see we used...we used agent orange in Vietnam, white phosphorus in Iraq, and depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan...just a to name a couple...look it up yourself people!


Agent Orange is a defoliant. White phosphorus a highly efficient smoke producing agent. Neither one is used to 'gas' people.

The Big Dog's back

How about Napalm?
In 1980, the United Nations declared that "the gel's use on concentrations of civilians a war crime"

The Big Dog's back

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

The Big Dog's back

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.[1][2] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange


-Agent Orange wasn't a weapon, it was a defoliant used to clear foliage from river banks. Not a weapon, and not intended to harm people.

-White phosphorus is an incindiary, not a chemical weapon, any more than a flamethrower is.

-Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It's used to add WEIGHT/MASS to bullets used against armored vehicles, to increase kinetic energy.

Yes, the USA has produced both chemical and biological agents, but never used them. All US military training regarding chemical and biological weapons is defensive.

The Big Dog's back

AO, for not being a "chemical weapon", sure worked like a chemical weapon.

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.

The Big Dog's back

WP (Willy Pete), smells like a chemical, kills like a chemical weapon. Nah, not a chemical weapon.

And you're really green behind the ears when it comes to chemical agent's use in the Viet Nam war.


The Big Dog's back, intelligent comment. Keep em coming.

red white and blue

Sstopit:that's funny it is but I do think we have them I truely do u would be a fool to think we don't but I'm sure they wouldn't use them on us that's obsered


Why is it ok for him and not Bush? Moron


Pres. Obama:

"what message will we sent if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price."

And what "message" is being sent when the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama orders drone strikes that have killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Somalia and Pakistan?

"168 Pakistani Children Killed in US Drone Attacks"




I think that if Obama does not have the United Nations support as well as other nations support and are not willing to back us on something like this .and when there is no threat to the U.S . I believe we should stay at home and clean right here in the states where its also needed


Oh, please. Obama doesn't give a dam* about the Constitution or about Congress. He's only waiting now because his approval ratings continue to sink AND because he genuinely can't think of what to do, and this buys him some time.

As for the chemical weapons use in Syria, well, it wouldn't surprise me if EITHER side had used them. The real question here is whether or not anybody's going to do anything about it, and even whether or not anybody SHOULD do anything about it. It seems to me that the lawful and correct thing to do is determine which side did it (or if both did), and then to arrest those who gave the orders and try them in the much-vaunted International Court (which is largely a crock, but put up, or shut up, right, United Nations?).

Also worth considering: Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq. And what did we do? NOTHING. Some African governments have been engaging in overt genocide for years. And what have we done? NOTHING. To pretend that Syria is somehow different is nothing more or less than that: a pretense.

And Big Dog, get it straight re: Benghazi. NOBODY has suggested we attack Libya over what happened there. First, we need to know what actually happened there, and at least as importantly, what happened HERE while Americans were being murdered. To do that, we need to get through Obama's and Clinton's lies. THEN we can take action (probably against terrorists as opposed to government agents or agencies, but again, we need to KNOW; and HOPEFULLY against Clinton and Obama who I firmly believe are guilty as sin in the cover-up).


Uh, Sam? Breaking news on CNN.com: Obama seeks approval from Congress for Syria Strike. Sounds to me that he does care about proper Constitutional protocol and is making Congress a part of that decision. As far as a cover-up with Syria or Benghazi, there is no evidence of that outside of the alternate reality as reported by that rightwing opinion network masquerading as news known as Fox Network.


Re: "Sounds to me that he does care about proper Constitutional protocol,"

Without the UK, he has no coalition and needs political cover.

Funny that he isn't bashing the Repubs for not rubber stamping his foreign policy temper tantrum.

The Big Dog's back

So now we need the UK's approval pootz?


One thing is sure. Obama will not use false information, as warmongering Bush did, to coerce Americans to support his plans to invade another country. How soon conservatives forget their own party's ineptness at handling foreign policy. In spite of recent history showing just the opposite, they still think they have all the answers...


"Obama will not use false information"

Correct it was a video that caused all the trouble : )