Aa
US readies possible solo action against Syria
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
True, no uranium found in Iraq. Hussein did however gas 40 villages and in those attacks alone killed roughly 5000 people. That was back in 87, I think and nobody did a thing about it. In the mean time, Hussein continued to torture and kill his own people.
Gas v.s. Gas.... Whatever, it is a moot point.
About the line in the sand. We've drawn lines in the sand before and that is what normally leads us into some kind of conflict. We sign some treaty saying this or that is or is not tolerable with the UN... the UN throws a fit when one of the crazies in the middle east challenges that, then calls us to go straighten things out. (Recall Libya?)
Gas v.s. Gas.... Whatever, it is a moot point.
About the line in the sand. We've drawn lines in the sand before and that is what normally leads us into some kind of conflict. We sign some treaty saying this or that is or is not tolerable with the UN... the UN throws a fit when one of the crazies in the middle east challenges that, then calls us to go straighten things out. (Recall Libya?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
How many people died when Saddam gassed his own people? But that was ok and Syria is not?
Obama's lies continue.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-i-didnt-set-red-line-syria_752712.html
Obama's lies continue.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-i-didnt-set-red-line-syria_752712.html
I'm not going to comment on whether Iraq was lies, or if they really believed it. Point is, it was wrong and the cost was really high - so many lives lost never mind the financial cost, etc. I worry about that a lot this time. I don't think Obama is some sort of evil war monger - quite the contrary. But mistakes happen, and I can't believe he wouldn't share intelligence with other countries - after all, he is trying to get them to join him. I still say this has to be a joint effort and must proceed with caution.
I think the hesitancy from other countries is for a couple of reasons. One, there has been war for what, 10 years now? And yes, how the Iraq war does come into play - most of us still feel that was an unjust war. Also, I know I would want to know what if? So Obama gets his 90 days, limited to air strikes. Then, God forbid, Assad hits Israel, or retaliates in some other way. Then what? As I said, the situation is horrible, but I do worry this will make things worse. Assad knew the US had threatened action if these weapons were used, yet he did it anyway. Why, and who does he have behind him? No question there is intelligence most of us don't know, but there supposedly was in Iraq as well. I have always liked Obama, and for the most part still do, but I still haven't seen or read anything that makes me think this will end either quickly, or without a full scale invasion. And as horrible as what is happening is, it is a civil war. Rivil, you are right though, if my country was being gassed no doubt I would feel differently. But I'm scared - scared of what this will lead to, and not sure I trust entirely the intelligence - it's been wrong before. What is different now?
I believe the truth, you believe the lies. So tell me how were we lied to?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
