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.

 

Comments

be for real

If he goes on without the approval,they need to impeach him.Thats what is wrong in the white house,he does whatever he wants and nothing happens.

pntbutterandjelly

In my opinion.....Barack has now given Congress the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people who voted them into office. With that opportunity for real "representation" this decision has now become a classic, and correctly-handled, case for Democracy in action. What more can the voting public want or rightfully expect?
At the minimum...Barack didn't take the matters of war into his own hands under false pretenses ("Weapons of Mass Destruction")as our former President did. Therefore....which alternative is best? Proper representation or a one-man-show? (I choose Democracy)

Contango

Re: "Barack didn't take the matters of war into his own hands under false pretenses"

Reads more like waffling.

"Senior administration officials describing Obama's about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he'd had a change of heart."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...

Funny that he isn't once again blaming the Republicans for not agreeing with him.

Re: "false pretenses"

Better talk to the CIA who provided the evidence.

bondgirlM

Bush did not act on his own. He took it to Congress who voted to strike in Iraq and they voted that way because they (Congress) was given the same information that President Bush was given by Intelligence. The Liberals keep trying to rewrite History saying Bush took it upon himself. Well Hillary and Nancy and the bunch received the same intelligence information that Bush received and they felt it was warranted. You guys need to move on!

Contango

Re: "The Liberals keep trying to rewrite History saying Bush took it upon himself."

"Saddam deceived his own army and the best intelligence agencies in the world into believing he still had WMDs because he believed none of his enemies would dare attack him if he had WMDs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira...

Former Iraqi National Security Advisor and retired general officer of the Iraqi Air Force, Georges Sada wrote that the WMD was flown to Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo...

Centauri

"In my opinion.....Barack has now given Congress the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people who voted them into office."

Only a small number of voters cast their votes for Obama. The majority of voters cast their votes for other candidates or simply refused to cast votes. A non-voter still voted but their votes are not counted. If you ask a non-voter why they stayed home on election day, there are many excuses. The main one that I have heard was that they are all crooks no matter what party. Another was that their choice of a candidate lost in the primaries. Another excuse was that their candidate wasn't on the state ballot.

I didn't vote for Obama and certainly would not have voted for Romney. I voted for third candidates that past 21 years.

Obama does not "speak on behalf of the people who voted them into office" and many of those who voted for Obama now wish that they didn't.
Obama speaks on behalf of the rich ruling class who control the news media, wars and conflicts, jobs, money and the people. Obama does not speak for me or the majority of others.

How many of you would sacrifice the lives of your children and send them off to wars that only benefit the rich ruling class? People go along with wars as long as their children or loved are not part of any war or conflict.

Ever hear of NIMBY, an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"?
That could also apply to almost anything such as a war as long as somebody else goes off to some stupid war based on lies.

red white and blue

How many times do we have to say NO!!!!!!!!!!

shepherd_of_fire

When you are getting advised by Putin......well you know it's bad. I always have faith in our intelligence but in this case I strongly disagree! Stay out of Syria!

Stop It

Let Syria deal with THEIR civil war. It has nothing to do with us. Nothing.

JudgeMeNot

Let Allah settle it for them.

Contango

Funny; when it comes to economic issues, the POTUS blames the Republicans for inactivity, says, "we can't wait" and then uses Executive action.

However, in regards to cruise missile strikes in Syria, the Waffler-in-Chief talks tough and then cowers behind congressional approval.

In Libya, he said that he didn't need or want congressional approval, but now he does?

As Senator Biden said:

"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."

SO TRUE.

2cents's picture
2cents

I personally believe he wants to use congress to back down under their order to save face!

44846GWP

Winnie, if he went ahead and bombed without asking Congress, you would still be b-tching. No matter what he doesor did you wouldn't be happy. Why don't you just sit this one out, nobody wants to hear your flip/flopping

Contango

Re: "if he went ahead and bombed,"

So you DO support cruise missle strikes putz?

deertracker

Stop whining pooh! He is doing exactly what the law requires. He can't legally unilaterally attack Syria without cause. All this so called tough talk is media hype. He simply stated what actions warrant action. Those that want or expect him to just start shooting missiles don't know him very well. IMO, he should tell the Arab leaders to stand up for their people. We should stay out of it and I hope congress says NO!

Contango

Re: "He can't legally unilaterally attack Syria without cause."

And he ATTACKED Libya without "cause" and without congressional approval why?

The Big Dog's back

Without cause???????? You moroon, you were whining about Benghazi for how long????? Moroon.

Contango

Re: "Without cause????????"

Answer the question putz:

And he ATTACKED Libya without "cause" and without congressional approval why?

Nemesis

He attacked them BEFORE Benghazi.

deertracker

"HE" didn't attack anyone without cause or unilaterally!

Contango

Re: "'HE' didn't attack anyone without cause or unilaterally!"

And military action in Libya was in our national security interest how?

Did he get congressional approval putz?

rottnrog

And bush attacked Iraq without cause and really hurt this country !!!!

Contango

Re: "And bush attacked Iraq without cause"

Did he get UN and congressional approval? Did we have allies?

Did you read the Duelfer Report?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/...

The Big Dog's back

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war,[18] and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.[24]
From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US.

Contango

Re: "military intervention in Libya"

So you supported U.S. military action in Libya putz?

JudgeMeNot

rottnrog, your a fool.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Contango

Re: "All this so called tough talk is media hype."

Yea, I saw and heard the Incompetent-in-Chief's "tough talk" & "media hype" today. Did you Suzie Q?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...

deertracker

Media hype!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Contango

Re: "Media hype!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yea, that's why he was out in the Rose Garden b*tchin' about it today.

LMAO!!

Also: Helps to take attention off the continuing decaying economy.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid Suzie Q.

deertracker

You want him to attack so you can whine about that! What a complete drunken idiot you are.

Contango

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.

Contango

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.

Contango
44846GWP

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.

Contango

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.

Putz.

Contango

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?

rottnrog

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

Contango

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

You mean that the Obama Admin. lies?

bullydogs1971

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!

JudgeMeNot

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

Nemesis

-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.

JudgeMeNot

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

puddin95

Why is it ok for him and not Bush? Moron

Contango

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"

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markul...

http://www.projectcensored.org/d...

gene44870

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

SamAdams

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).

coasterfan

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.

Contango

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?

coasterfan

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...

2cents's picture
2cents

"Obama will not use false information"

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

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Give it a rest already will ya? No one, except Obama sycophants and the feeble minded, buy into that lying, hypocritical revisionists malarkey.

Contango

Re: "warmongering"

Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner has his own bloody list:

Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, et al.

Also, LBJ was the CLASSIC Democrat warmonger, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gul...

bullydogs1971

A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen

http://www.policymic.com/article...

Centauri

Yemen and Pakistan are one of the top countries that hate the United States. The United States in now an "evil empire" to many countries. If the US were personified, many countries would view the US as an arrogant bully who wants to take over the whole world and to hell with other countries and its people. The US has military bases all over the world and also assassinates the leaders of other countries.

War only brings more war. Give peace a chance. The US needs to stop acting like an arrogant bully. The rich ruling class of Americans also are arrogant bullies to other Americans. I lost thousands of dollars to the crooks on Wall Street who faced no criminal charges. These crooks are part of the rich ruling class and continue to steal more money. They also got bonuses for stealing the money.

Darwin's choice

Another outright lie Coasterfan!! Again, saying it to make it true only happens in the Wizard of Oz !!

JudgeMeNot

coasterfan,
bush's warmongering buddies.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

bullydogs1971

Why Americans are Against War on Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...

bullydogs1971

Awaken - The Change Starts With You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fe...

bullydogs1971

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...

bullydogs1971

The Terrifying Future of The United States

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1...

Centauri

http://www.youtube.com/user/Stor...
180 videos by StormCloudsGathering worth the time to watch. The videos will cause most Americans to start asking some serious questions. Sadly some people have been brainwashed to the point of no return and will refuse to look at anything that exposes the truth and the lies.

bullydogs1971

Viewer discretion is advised!
https://www.facebook.com/obsessi...

Darwin's choice

So, Obama has been supporting the rebels, and now, there is proven evidence that the gas "attack" was the result of an accident by those same rebels!! Seems Obama and Kerry are backing the wrong horse again! Almost like that "fast and furious" farce he's responsible for. How about it Coasterfan, 4shizzle, Big Dog, Deertracker? Another Obama FAIL!

http://www.examiner.com/article/...

tk

Congress was asking the President to bring it to them and now that he has said he will, they are complaining that he is. It doesn't matter what this President does the Republicans are going to criticize him.

Darwin's choice

Hopefully, every Republican will vote like Obama, "present", and throw this squarely on the Democrats to live or die with!!!

The Big Dog's back

We know the Repubs are cowards, treasonous chickenhawks.

shucks

Slanderous too.

JudgeMeNot

We all know you have such intelligent comments. Keep em coming 4sizzles cause you just might be the smartest out off the other like deerwaker, big dope is back and coasterfan.

shucks

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Darwin's choice

Nope, no intelligence there....!

Typical responses, "look, a squirrel......"

shucks

Hi shitbrain !

Darwin's choice

You are so smart.....

shucks

Not as smart as you.

The Big Dog's back

Exactly tk.

Mystery_Cheese

Just like Democrats criticized everything every Republican president has done? Both sides are a bunch of whiny babies, so let's not just blame one side of this dirty, beat-up coin.

Really are you ...

Let Syria fight amongst itself. There is not 100% proof of which side used chemical weapons. During our civil war, we did not have any other nation trying to intervene. The United States is not the World Police, we can not afford it financially, and this will put us on the brink of WWIII. UN member Turkey is the next country to the north. What does Turkey say?

Nemesis

Very good point. In the context of the technology of the time, Sherman's conduct in Georgia was every bit as egregious as anything Assad has done. What would Mr. Lincoln say if England and France had decided that burning Atlanta was a "red line" that "altered the calculus" and compelled them to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy? The world kept its nose out when this country had an internal dispute; we should grant the rest of the nations of the world the same respect.

The Big Dog's back

Actually the world didn't keep it's nose out of our civil war.

Contango

Re: "Actually the world didn't keep it's nose out of our civil war."

The Federal blockade was effective. Both France and Britain sat it out.

Stop It

They both, (France and Britain) still got their respective supplies delivered.

Contango

Re: "still got their respective supplies delivered."

Not through the Union blockade of the Confederacy they didn't.

You and putz are making sh*t up.

Keep working on that GED and make your mamma proud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...

Stop It

You really have to come up with a better source than wikipedia. There isn't a college or even high school anywhere, that would accept them as a reference.

Contango

Re: "You really have to come up with a better source,"

Then support your nonsense and prove me wrong. :)

bullydogs1971

I haven't been here in awhile....i see nothing has change...still believing in the right/left paradigm thing again.....republicans...democrats....it's like a two headed snake people...all this Obama crap is just the same Bush crap...just a different face! Nothing has changed...same policies, different spin...

Mystery_Cheese

Too true. This isn't about Democrat or Republican; it's about a horrible foreign policy that the U.S. has stuck with since the 1950's. A foreign policy that has already cost us 3000+ civilian lives, and will soon cost us even more.

Nemesis

Well, every time we try to discuss the issues, Big Dog and Contango turn it into a partisan pissing match.

shucks

You can't see that Contango is the idiot instigator?

Contango

Re: "Contango turn it into a partisan pissing match."

"Partisan"?

Don't be a putz.

I remain an Independent (libertarian).

Repubs and Dems? Dumb and Dumber parties.

shucks

Libertarianism is for idiots.

arnmcrmn

you must be so proud 4...I mean your name calling skills for an internet tough guy are so good.

shucks

You can't see what he says...........?
Love must be blind.

JudgeMeNot

The preferred policy is bomb everyone all the time without facts. Dems encouraged bush in Iraq. Obama, clearly the most incompetent & unqualified President in modern times, What a failure of leadership. Eight years of incompetence is a lot to dig out from and undo.

Continuing to break our bank in the Middle East is neither prudent or productive. Obama could not lead a mule to water. When Obama leaves the whitehouse, the only thing he will have missed is any REAL accomplishments.

tk

@JudgeMeNot "Eight years of incompetence is a lot to dig out from and undo." It sure is. That is what President Obama is trying to do. Dig out and undo eight years of incompentence.

The Big Dog's back

Exactly! I think the judge made a Freudian slip.

Darwin's choice

So, how about posting a list of all these great accomplishments by Obama?

I'll start... 1.
2.
3.
nevermind, it would be a waste of bandwidth!

shucks

This was written with you in mind , Darwin's hemorrhoid.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-...

Darwin's choice

Always the azzhat! Don't waiver! You'll go down swinging, though. Hahahahahahaha!!!!

shucks

Did you look at my link?

dorothy gale

Hard to accomplish anything with hateful, obstructionist, ignorant, do-nothing, treasonous, disrespectful REPUBLICANS blocking everything he suggests. And our President's GREATEST accomplishment is ridding the world of the demon called bin Laden. Something the little drunk moron before him could not do.

shucks

Well said.

Darwin's choice

see post below.....

Contango

Re: "REPUBLICANS blocking everything he suggests,"

So you want the HOR to rubber stamp a cruise missile strike on Syria?

Darwin's choice

Here's something Obama will never achieve....respect of our country!

http://stg.do/ZRVc

shucks

Are you really that of a big dumb azz or are you playing?

That was pre-Iraq.
Ask those same people again how they feel about Bush.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles...

Darwin's choice

Well azzhat, how many nations were backing President Bush going into Iraq? And how many are backing Obama? Your stupidity and blindness are blocking rational thought.

shucks

You are hopelessly stupid.

worddrow811

Am I the only one who sees any war as a money-maker for the maufacturers of weapons? Follow the money-trail and it ALWAYS comes back to making money from killing people and someone makes sure that there is always a war going on somewhere!!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Booming Tear Gas Industry Continues To Lead Global Economic Recovery

http://youtu.be/hlxHoboDz2k

It's from The Onion so it is satirical, but still an amusing point to ponder. The other stories on the "newsreel" are good, too.

bullydogs1971

Insurgents in Syria take responsibility for chemical weapons attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3...

bullydogs1971

"Let's get something straight; above ALL else, US soldiers must first protect and defend the United States Constitution (not the military's constitution). Their "job" isn't to blindly obey orders from the Executive branch, acting as Obama's personal slave army, regardless if it violates the Constitution. Wake up people! To the US military: Most of you know why you joined the armed services of this country, and I imagine it had little to do with fighting endless wars overseas. Deep down inside, you realize the LAST thing the Syrian people need right now is (more) bombs being dropped on crowded cities where women and children sleep at night. You must understand; suggesting violence as the solution to violence is beyond insanity. Citizens, stop ridiculing your fellow soldiers for refusing to fight preemptive wars overseas and instead realize that their voice of resistance is an act of courage and self-discipline you could only dream of representing."

"Look at a picture of George W. Bush, then look at a picture of Barack H. Obama. If both pictures leave you with the taste of vomit in your mouth, you're most likely awake."
I Don't Trust The Government-https://www.facebook.com/IDontTr...

2cents's picture
2cents

Just checking in on this thread, did he have dinner with his momma and get permission to attack yet : )

The Big Dog's back

So, you want us to attack? Tell bohner to call Congress back and vote for it.

2cents's picture
2cents
Huron_1969

I normally can't stand to listen to Glen Beck, but he is right on the money with this message (and delivery).

Very alarming when Beck and Putin make more sense than our elected officials

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

All he needs now is some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Darwin's choice

Big Dog says..."you want us to attack?"

No,his comment was about the waffler-in-charge, and who is really running the White House!

The Big Dog's back

What has he waffled on?

shucks

[sound of crickets] in Darwin's skull.

Darwin's choice

azzhat Obama sheep.

2cents's picture
2cents

Obama care for number 1!

The Big Dog's back

Explain how he "waffled".

shucks

As you already know, he can't.

He's a Republican , kool aid drinking, troll.

arnmcrmn

says the internet tough guys sitting behind a fake name slinging mud. you chumps should really look in the mirror.....such tough guys.

Contango

Re: "So, you want us to attack?"

You support the POTUS aiding al-Qaeda in Syria don't you putz?

Pres. Obama:

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pr...

The Big Dog's back

Prove they are Al Qaeda. Oh wait, you can't because you're not there.

Contango

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20...

Join up putz and put your body where your shallow brain pan is.

EZOB

It's very simple, China and Russia suppoort Assad and O'Bama supports the Muslim Brotherhood just as He always backs them.
Agent Orange (roughly 3 parts per million) simply refers to the Orange stripe on the barrels. Agent Purple was a lot more potent at around 33-35 ppm and I think Agent White came in around 65 ppm. I think there are a couple more colors that I fail to remember but all are more potent than agent orange. This has been going on for How Long? They say maybe 18 months. I say a couple centuries. Why hurry now?

The Big Dog's back

China and Russia supported Saddam Hussein. What's your point?

arnmcrmn

The point is Obama wants the muslim brotherhood radicals in charge, not dictators AND Obama is doing just that over there.

EZOB

A Jewish guy was walking along a Lake Erie beach and kicked a bottle. A Genie came out and granted Him one wish. "Let there be peace in the Middle East". The Genie explained that the greatest Genies of all time haven't been able to achieve peace in the Middle East. Okay, then I'd like to see the Browns go to the Super Bowl. The Genie said, "I'll working on getting peace in the Middle East".

EZOB
arnmcrmn

Smoke and mirrors. This has nothing to do with Syria at all. Its all about the votes and future elections and guess who will be right behind this....Hillary Clinton.

I love hearing the left cry about Iraq and the weapons that they didn't find. Ummm, pardon me but we did find and kill 3 weapons of mass destruction. They were Saddam and his 2 sons, who killed and tortured nearly a million Iraqi people over their time of rule.

Fast forward to Syria...who has been killing and torturing its people for years...and NOW we want to do something about it? Get in Obama's way and discredit his want for more war and you look like a selfish uncaring person. Agree with him and go to war AGAIN, and he and his party (and the overwhelmingly liberal media) will use this as ammo come election time.

Obamas handling of Syria over the last year reads like a book on "what not to do with foreign relations"

But go ahead liberals, support your buffoon and puppet master. No more war, except when the MESSIAH wants it.

He (Obie) wants to out dictators and fill their positions with elite radicals from the Muslim Brotherhood and you people just cannot see this obvious stuff.

shucks

Run along and go sell your beauty cream.

arnmcrmn

Ah, personal attacks from the internet tough man. Jealous much? I think so.

shucks

You call that an attack?
Then you are pretty weak.
Jealous of you ?
Ah, not at all.
It's probably your wife's business that supports you.

Contango

Re: "Obamas handling of Syria"

And Egypt and Libya and Yemen and Iran, et al.

arnmcrmn

@contango.....this is what you get when you elect a president with ZERO foreign experience. His entire foreign blueprint has been a failure from day one.

2cents's picture
2cents

Always two sides, not sure what our government wants to do? Go bomb the insurgents since they are killing children too? What a cluster F!

http://www.presstv.com/detail/20...

bullydogs1971

How the Rest of the World Views the American Military
Paul Waldman lays out a list of significant US military actions over the past 50 years, and it adds up to 15 separate episodes, ranging from full-scale wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) to smaller incursions (Grenada, Haiti, Panama). For those of you who are math challenged, this means we've launched a significant overseas assault every 40 months since 1963. Waldman explains what this means:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin...

EZOB

We really want the rest of the world to Respect Us? Bomb and kill more people and stick our nose into "THEIR" business to gain more respect? NEWS FLASH! They already hate us more than their own enemies. We need them to look up to us so maybe we'll gain more favors? Remind Me Please, when was the last time any of these countries did anything for us?

Pages