Obama To Make Case For Syrian Intervention From Oval Office

3 Shares
obama0906_image

As many people throughout the Nation and a growing number of Congressmen continue to oppose American intervention in Syria, President Barack Obama is slated to address the populace from the Oval Office on Tuesday to make his case for war.

The President announced his plan on Friday during a break from the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, warning that the United States’ failure to swiftly respond to allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use would send the wrong message to the international community.

“Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence,” Obama said. “And that’s not the world that we want to live in.”

A New York Times piece published Friday cited officials who indicated that the President has also ordered an expansion of the list of targets he wishes to strike in Syria based on reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to fired chemical weapons.

The Times reported:

Mr. Obama’s instructions come as most members of Congress who are even willing to consider voting in favor of a military response to a chemical attack are insisting on strict limits on the duration and type of the strikes carried out by the United States, while a small number of Republicans are telling the White House that the current plans are not muscular enough to destabilize the Assad government.

Senior officials are aware of the competing imperatives they now confront — that to win even the fight on Capitol Hill, they will have to accept restrictions on the military response, and in order to make the strike meaningful they must expand its scope.

“They are being pulled in two different directions,” a senior foreign official involved in the discussions said Thursday. “The worst outcome would be to come out of this bruising battle with Congress and conduct a military action that made little difference.”

Obama’s insistence that the United States should strike Syria made for an awkward situation at the Russian-hosted G-20 summit, as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to hold steadfast in support of the Syrian leadership.

Putin said last week that G-20 nations spent the “entire” Thursday evening deliberating the Syrian crisis. He insists that a majority of his international counterparts are against military action against the Syrian government and said Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike.

Russia has since positioned war ships near the Syrian coast.

By the end of last week, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France had joined the U.S. push for intervention, while Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy stood in firm opposition.

At home, Obama’s political allies on both sides of the aisle have been busy pushing the notion that U.S. intervention in Syria is obligatory.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took on the form of a Congressional super-hawk by the week’s end, writing three public letters to her caucus in an attempt to drum up public support for the war.

In her third letter, Pelosi emphasized restrictions in the Senate Foreign Relations Committees proposal for Syrian war which she contends address “some of the concerns expressed by many of our House members” about a military strike — essentially, a small war should be a popular war.

“Specifically, the resolution prevents boots on the ground, ties the authorization more closely to the use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, and has a limited timetable,” Pelosi wrote.

By Friday, more than 20 House members had expressed public support for Syrian war and about 50 were staunchly opposed.

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), an outspoken supporter of war with Syria, was forced to go on the defensive during a town hall meeting with his constituents on Thursday, further illustrating the disconnect between the average American and the Nation’s political class on the issue.

“I want to begin by saying to you I am unalterably opposed to having a single American boot on the ground in Syria,” McCain said. “The American people wouldn’t stand for it.

“Second of all, it would not be anything but counterproductive to do that. American blood and treasure is too precious to do that.”

But, McCain said, irrefutable evidence that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against civilians exists.

“I have seen the information, and the American people will see more and more information, that Bashar Assad did use chemical weapons and it killed well over 1,000 people, many of them children,” he told the crowd in Arizona.

“If we open the door to the use of chemical weapons and let it go unresponded to, then I think that sends a signal to other people that want to use them, that they can do so with impunity,” McCain said.

Meanwhile, conservatives and anti-war liberals throughout the Nation continue to refute the notion that intervention in the Syrian civil war should take place.

Matt Kibbe, president of the Tea Party-linked FreedomWorks, commented on the situation Friday.

“Congress should be focusing on the red ink at home, not arbitrarily established red lines abroad. As a membership organization, FreedomWorks has been overwhelmed with requests to help activists express their voice in this debate,” he said in a statement. “A broad coalition of Americans, including the millions of grassroots activists represented in the FreedomWorks community, has already roundly rejected the Obama Administration’s rationale for bombing Syria. Congress ignores the will of the voters on this issue at their own peril.

“In many ways, this ‘insiders versus the rest of us’ dynamic reflects the same recipe that led to the defeat of the first TARP bailout attempt on the House floor in 2008. This tone deafness gave rise to a grassroots revolution.”

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released early last week revealed that nearly six in 10 Americans oppose a military strike against Syria, with or without “boots on the ground.”

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • independent thinker

    ‘But, McCain said, irrefutable evidence that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against civilians exists.”
    How can they have “irrefutable evidence” when the tests to confirm the use of chemical weapons has not been completed? The videos that have been shown on TV so far look like they are staged with the “muscle spasms” they purport to show looking too deliberate to be caused by an outside agent. One example, tonight I saw a video supposedly showing a victim of the attack. The victim was lying on his back beating his heels on the ground in a rhythmic manner just like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. If the leg movements were caused by a chemical agent you would expect the movements to be much more random.

    • smilee

      The UN tests have not came back but tests have been done that prove it and satellite pictures know where the missiles that carried the gas came from and where they landed and very soon after many reports from those on the ground they where letting the world know what was happening, Your thinking sure sure shows very little independence but more closed minded as you ignore all this information

      • independent thinker

        Your lack of thinking shows your blind acceptance of anything Obama and his spokesmen say.

        • smilee

          What proof do yo have what I had is not true?? You have none and that is why you are not an independent thinker

          • Kent Taylor

            Like a couple of 2 year old kids fighting over candy.

      • Jack

        Smilee:

        I have no ax to grind about Obama. I am just sick and tired of all of the distortions and lies whether they come from the right or the left.

        After I listened to Gen. Powell’s UN speech in 2003, I knew that he had not told “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. I knew that because some of the things he said contradicted other things he said and some of it didn’t make any sense.

        For instance (I can’t remember the guy’s name) the man he said was in northern Iraq who came to Iraq from Afghanistan for medical care (supposedly he had lost his leg) who was training people how to how to make and use chemical weapons.The first thing that came to my mind is was the guy in a part of Iraq controlled by Saddam or was he in the Kurdish Zone that Saddam had no control over. The guy was in the Kurdish Zone where we had effective control and could have taken him out anytime we wanted..

        By the way when the guy was finally killed a few years latter, he had miraculously grown a new leg.

        We “know where the missiles were launched from”. That sounds good, the only thing is they also said those strikes took place 90 minutes before the “chemical” release. If the missiles carried the chemical weapons, then how could the release have occurred 90 minutes later? It doesn’t make sense.

        There are an awful lot of incentives for countries to not exactly tell the truth regarding the Syrian situation. If the “smoking gun” intelligence about intercepted Syrian government conversations admitting the use of chemical weapons is coming from Israel as has been reported, then that itself should give one pause before accepting that information as being totally truthful. Shouldn’t there be further independent verification before the information is believed?.

        Bush lied and rushed us into a war in Iraq. He would not wait for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work and the UN to approve the attack. Did he do this because he either knew or strongly believed they would not find any WMD’s? Why is Obama rushing for an attack before we have even received the UN report to make sure military grade chemicals were even used?

        Before we take a step that we cannot ever walk back if we are wrong, shouldn’t we know all the facts and be very skeptical of information coming from anyone (side) who has an ax to grind?

        Didn’t the previous stink about Assad’s supposed use of chemical weapons blow up when it turned out it was the “opposition forces” that used them? There seems to be plenty of evidence that backers of some of the “opposition forces” have assisted those forces with chemical weapons.

        I just want what is best for America. It is wrong whether it was Bush or now it is now Obama rushing this country into a military conflict. There should never be a rush. We need critical thinking. We need to question everything that we are being told. What we don’t need is a bunch of lemmings in Congress to just accept the information they are given. Remember in 2002, only a handful of he 535 members of Congress even made the effort to look at the “secrete” report that was made available to them. Mostly, they just took what they were being told as the truth and didn’t give the matter any critical thinking. I hope this Congress does a better job. .

      • Robert Messmer

        This gets you a big ‘So what?’ I will make this easy for you. I will accept everything you said as being God’s honest truth. I mean lets even go further and stipulate that some brave soul has a video showing Assad pushing the button. Has him on tape even bragging about “gassing those poor people”. So what? It is a civil war which means it is none of our business UNTIL there is a clear and imminent danger to the US. President Obama has said that is not the case. Under International law we can not legally attack Syria without the UN Security Council authorizing it. Russia and Red China both have permanent seats on the Security Council. Do you seriously think that Putin is going to sign off on an attack against Assad since Putin has pledged to protect Assad? And don’t even go with well its a moral thing since there are a world full of moral wrongs that this country and even this administration has simple ignored.

  • Harold Olsen

    John McCain is not someone who has a great deal of credibility. Where is the irrefutable proof? How can there be irrefutable proof, especially since the so-called rebels, terrorists by any other name, claim it was they who used the gas? And, if it were the “rebels,” where did they get it? Could they have been the recipients of another version of “Fast & Furious,” courtesy of the Obama regime?

  • KingKen

    No more violence-! No more war-! President Strangelove is INSANE-! His supporters are INSANE-! They are beholden to the Criminals running the NWO…bought, paid for, blackmailed they are paving the way to WW3.
    Vladimir Putin together with Xi Jinping have been preparing for this INSANITY since 2001 when they signed a mutual friendship agreement. They have participated in at least three major war game scenaros preparing for this contingency.
    If Strangelove gets his way millions upon millions of human beings will be exterminated.

  • Dajeno

    Obama, masquerading as the president of the United States only takes action when he feels it’s a political advantage, a personal advantage or to cover his exposed butt. He cares nothing about the citizens he’s supposedly representing. When are the 51% of Americans living their lives burdened with blinders wake up and understand what this narcissistic masquerader is all about. It’s time to get rid of him and his loose lipped sidekick. As for McCain, who sometimes acts like a liberal masquerading as a republican. I think it’s time he steps down before his senility advances to the next stage.

  • peter

    So the old idea that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ does not apply here. Since when is a cop given the right to apprehend, judge and execute anyone? My second thought is that a limited strike is idiotic and will achieve nothing, but I am still not sure what the objective of these idiots are, unless they are just playing games. A war is a war and cannot be limited as then it serves no purpose. If Obama wants to go to war then he should GO TO WAR with the objective of cleaning up the rats and get finished. No pussy footing around until we have another Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other destructions we have managed to create across the world, so very successfully. What happens when a new country discovers oil? They will incur the wrath of the USA – that is what will happen. If all these claims about establishing stability and democracy in the middle east are true, where has the USA been whilst China and Russia and so many others have been so busy annihilating their own people for so long? Are there different rues for different players or are the stakes too high? Bullies are just bullies and bullies NEVER promote the wishes of the rest, only their own! They also never take part, they just instigate the mayhem – bloody cowards to boot!

  • peter

    How times have changed. Atilla led his men into battle. Obama orders them in.
    Very brave fellow he is. After the peace prize he should also get a few honourable combat medals as well. How about the freedom of Benghazi key?

  • Toxick1

    If Obama wants a very limited attack, he should be allowed to stand at the Turkish or Jordanian border and lob a few rocks into Syria. That should make him feel heroic.

  • TNS

    Pearl harbor wasn’t a declaration of war just a limited airstrike with no boots on the ground. This is what the people pushing for an attack on Syria sound like