Start A Petition

Obama, Syria, and Congress: Why Did He Go There?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, democrats, ethics, government, iraq, media, military, obama, politics, republicans, war )

- 1719 days ago -
The conventional snark on President Barack Obama's Syria strategy is that he's made a hash of it.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Friday September 6, 2013, 5:08 am
Photo Credit: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Zuma

The conventional snark on President Barack Obama's Syria strategy is that he's made a hash of it. The other day, I bumped into a former Obama administration official who informed me his jaw hit the floor when he watched the president on Saturday announce he would seek congressional authorization for a limited military strike on Bashar al-Assad's regime in retaliation for its presumed use of chemical weapons last month. "Why make this more complicated?" this frustrated ex-official asked. And a House Democrat I encountered who supports a strike—and who has been enlisted by House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to persuade progressive Ds to vote for the president's Syria resolution—was apoplectic: "The one thing this president knows is how dysfunctional and obstructionist the [Republican-controlled] House is. Why would he stake his presidency on it?" This lawmaker was pessimistic that enough House Democrats could be coaxed into voting for the resolution; he was not making any progress with his party-mates opposed to a strike. "We don't have the votes," he declared—and he was damn angry at Obama.

With his decision to seek congressional approval for an attack, Obama created a political whirlpool. He exacerbated the growing schism on the right that pits tea party isolationists—led by possible presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), with Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), other likely 2016ers, rushing to catch up—versus the coalition of hawks commanded by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and neocons who yearn for a deeper and larger intervention in Syria than the president envisions. This split has the potential to turn into an ideological civil war the within GOP during the next presidential campaign. Meanwhile, House Republicans are deeply divided (unlike during the run-up to the Iraq war), with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership crew on the president's side and rank-and-file House GOPers, enwrapped in Obama hatred, accusing the president of misleading the world and engaging in conspiratorial warmongering.

That's the good news for the White House. The bad news is that the president has sparked the same thing on his own side. Many Democrats, especially in the House, feel torn between backing the leader of their party and their anti-war inclinations, which are certainly buttressed by widespread popular opposition to the strike. Granted, Democrats are used to confronting such tensions. (Almost all House and Senate Republicans voted for the Iraq war, but half the Democrats backed it, and half opposed it.) Yet this time the decision for many Democrats is more difficult due to the overarching political context. The president is about to engage the Republicans on two contentious fronts: a battle over the funding of the federal government (with a possible government shutdown at risk) and a fight over raising the debt ceiling (with a possible financial crisis at risk). And tea party Republicans are attempting to bring Obamacare into the brewing mess. (Their threat: if you don't defund Obamacare, we'll shut down the government.) With all this looming, Democrats certainly don't want Obama's standing weakened, and if he loses the vote on the Syria resolution, he will be diminished.

And maybe not just at home. If Obama fails to win congressional support—at the moment, his prospects are much better in the Senate than the House—frenemies and foes abroad will no doubt consider this a sign of infirmity. And the president will confront yet another dilemma: whether to proceed with an attack. He has not ruled out an assault unauthorized by Congress. Yet if he bombs Syria without the support of Congress (or with only the Senate backing him)—a prospect discounted by several former Obama officials—he may well prompt a political crisis at home. (Yes, some GOPers will call for impeachment.) At the least, he will face a fusillade of criticism and the charge that he's a hypocrite who only abides by the Constitution when it suits him. Yet if the resolution does not pass both houses of Congress and Obama stands down on Syria—after having hurled exceedingly tough talk—he will probably appear weak to allies and enemies overseas.

Given all these swirling and complicated political dynamics, why did Obama grant Congress the right to hold him hostage? Some cynics have suggested that he might be seeking a way out of the corner he red-lined himself into. The polls show a strike would likely be highly unpopular among American voters, and experts of various ideological bents have raised serious questions about the efficacy and impact of a limited US military assault designed to deter Assad from the further use of chemical weapons. If Congress doesn't green light the endeavor, Obama can say he gave it a shot and retreat. Others have slammed Obama for not having the spine to go it alone, speculating he felt the need for political cover. But there's an alternative explanation: he's doing the right thing—or what he believes is the right thing.

A former senior Obama adviser who still works with the White House says, "Look at this. Is there any other explanation, other than he thinks this is what he ought to do?" Meaning that Obama, the former law professor, is paying heed to the constitutional notion that the president shares war-making responsibility with Congress. Though this question has long been a source of unresolved conflict between presidents and legislators—and Obama did not seek congressional approval for the military action in Libya and has ordered drone strikes without official Capitol Hill backing—he does appear to be sympathetic to the idea that a president does not possess unhindered and unchecked war-making authority. During the 2008 campaign, he declared, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

In Libya, Obama did not act in sync with his campaign statement. But in that instance, past and present Obama aides have contended, the president had only two days or so to mount a strike (with European and Arab allies) to prevent a possible slaughter of Libyan civilians. So Obama sidestepped his previously held view, put that particular principle on hold—and took the hit.

This time around, as Obama has pointed out, he does not have to move quickly to thwart an imminent threat. Consequently, he has had the chance to proceed according to constitutional rules (as he sees them). "I think it was pretty clear to him," says a former senior White House official, "that if he blew past Congress this time, that would be it." That is, the idea of joint executive-legislative responsibility for war would be trampled so far into the ground it could remain buried for years to come.

Though Obama has aimed to preserve a flexible degree of executive privilege—and he still might order a strike on Syria without Congress' okay—he didn't want to do long-term damage to this central constitutional principle. Sure, he'll bend it, but he won't break it. Guiding him, this former aide suggested, was that trademarked Obama nuance-ism that blends pragmatism and principle in a manner that hardly lends itself to crystal-clear messaging.

Is this what led Obama to decide to seek congressional approval and trigger the dust-up that is now bedeviling both parties and that may inflict damage upon his presidency? If so, part of Obama must believe deeply in this constitutional principle, for he's causing plenty of heartburn—if not heartbreak—for his political allies, his supporters, and for himself.

By: David Corn | Washington Bureau Chief | Mother Jones Magazine |

Angelika R (143)
Friday September 6, 2013, 10:17 am
What good is congressional approval anyway since Congress has stopped acting in the interest of American people?! How many of you can say their representative is really representing her/him?

Kathy Chadwell (354)
Friday September 6, 2013, 11:37 am
Angelika said it all,, short, sweet, TRUE and I agree with her 200%

Angelika R (143)
Friday September 6, 2013, 11:57 am
Today as you may have heard, all Americans incl. unnecessary embassy staff were asked to leave Lebanon, another indication for Obama's determination to a strike, or his " flexible degree of executive privilege"...

Arielle S (313)
Friday September 6, 2013, 12:18 pm
The President is an intelligent man - I have to assume he has a plan in all this. For me, it would be the rock and the hard place as if we do nothing, the chemical weapons are used again. If we strike, we open Pandora's box. There is no black and white here - it's all fifty shades of gray. Getting Congress involved gives the President time as well as putting their butts right in the middle, too. My question is - where is the UN?????

Past Member (0)
Friday September 6, 2013, 12:25 pm
This do nothing congress should not be given the time of day. Send them all home, take away their salaries and privileges (they live like little kings and queens) turn out the lights and save money. If the President was going in, go in, clean house, and get out. Thank you

Angelika R (143)
Friday September 6, 2013, 12:29 pm
Arielle: While admitting “a number of countries” at the summit stressed any military action plan should go through the UN Security Council, Obama said the US is in a different “camp” that questioned the UNSC effectiveness.

“Given the Security Council’s paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through the Security Council action,” Obama said. (

Angelika R (143)
Friday September 6, 2013, 12:53 pm
Sorry Kit for slipping off-topic-but I am scared we'll see a new cold war taking shape as the Russians will intercept US missiles on Syria-or what else would you call it? (more at

. (0)
Friday September 6, 2013, 2:29 pm
Obama has made a mess of Syria as (this article does not say) he is in Assad's Brotherhood pocket.
The President had not problem sending in drone attacks into Pakistan. The Buck Stops where? This is a man without moral, ethical. or political courage to do what is right toward Syria.
Who the hell is Congress? If You believe in what America should do, defend it. The problem as I wrote is Obama's split loyalty.

Lois Jordan (63)
Friday September 6, 2013, 4:02 pm
Noted. Thanks, Kit. He absolutely did the right thing sending it to Congress. They were recently unable to eliminate the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) from the Patriot Act, which Obama had hinted that he wanted eliminated in a speech awhile back. Now, Congress is divided, and not along partisan lines--which is also right. My Blue Dog congressman is still on the fence, although I've made my wishes of "no military strike" very clear to him.
Angelika mentioned the U.N. Security Council....well, the final report isn't in yet. I stick by what I stated previously, that:
In the U.N. charter, which the U.S. crafted and is a signatory, only 2 grounds exist for going to war:
1) Self Defense
2) U.N. Security Council resolution designating a country as a threat to world order.

Arielle S (313)
Friday September 6, 2013, 4:14 pm
Allan, I often wonder why you say some of the things you say....all due respect, I cannot see why you would say this president has no morals, ethics or political courage. Did you feel George w. had those?

Sheryl G (363)
Friday September 6, 2013, 5:26 pm
Many Democrats, especially in the House, feel torn between backing the leader of their party and their anti-war inclinations, which are certainly buttressed by widespread popular opposition to the strike.

These Democrats owe allegiance to The People not a single President. Enough is enough.

Those who are wanting us to march into another military action are hypocrites because The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in combat. The U.S. also used chemical weapons in World War I. We also have left a mess in Iraq with Depleted Uranium and Agent Orange in Viet Nam.

Now suddenly we care?

United States didn't care and was ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people -- during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s.

There is more here than meets the eye and we shouldn't send in missiles for a host of reasons. Diplomatic efforts, humanitarian aid for the children and women who are suffering yes, missiles no.

Please go to the hotlink below where there is a list of petitions if you also do not want to get involved into a mess that we could be mired in for a long time to come let alone tangle with Russia again. Our troops are tired, our economy is in shambles, Washington spends money like a bunch of drunks while the children in the USA are going to be hungry, schools falling apart, bridges falling into rivers, and Elders face keeping warm, eat or buy their medications.

This is one place where many on the right and the left are joining together. Maybe from here we can agree on other areas and start a real People's Movement to throw out the corruption in Washington and place people in there that are for the Nation not just a few Corporate Elites, Wall Street types and their buddies the Bank Robbers.


Scott haakon (4)
Friday September 6, 2013, 8:17 pm
The UN is useless. They encourage the terrorists by restricting arms that the citizens in many developing countries could use to defend themselves from bandit and terrorists. Obama is naive. Staying out of Syria and letting our enemies kill each other is a wonderful thing.

Pogle S (88)
Friday September 6, 2013, 11:07 pm
It's lunacy of his own making and more missiles will not make things better for anyone. The the overwhelming majority of Brits recognize this truth and this time around our Members of Parliament made a stand on our behalf that has prevented David Cameron joining the madness and forced him to focus on humanitarian aid instead.

fly b (26)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 3:12 am
good article. interesting comments.
thanks for posting

"AIPAC To Congress: Authorize Action."9/3/13
"AIPAC scraps AIPAC from Syria Story." 9/3/13

"U.S.Jewish Groups Call On Congress to Approve Use of Force against Syria's Assad."

"NYT Deletes the paragraph in which White House says AIPAC Is Key to War."

fly b (26)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 3:20 am
Another insightful report from

"How AIPAC works your Congress Person using Donors, Rabbis and Jewish members."

Phillipa W (199)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 9:29 am
what a fantastic article pointing out further reasons why he should just forget the whole idea. As if there weren't already enough.

l L (1)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 11:26 am
All good points from all..

As well; remember, America believes in pre-emptive strikes. What we think or assume "might" happen. Like Bush etal did and we toppled Iraq.

So what it amounts to is; Obama; does he understand he parrots Bush etal to a tee? Cause we have been spoon fed this playbook over and over. It's just his way of saying strike Syria, it's not war. But it is also a pre-emptive strike and we will...... call it something else when we declare victory.. like Bush..

As well; I hear today, Saturday that anyone who is not for the strike is for the leader of the country..

You know something .. where have I heard this before? Oh yeah... Bush..

Two things now concerns me is that while we are debating; will the strikes, will have already begun?
After all it has happened before. The Bin Laden execution.
Second; what is this really about?

You know? If what is happening in Syria were happening here, this government would not stand for it...I listened to Kerry say.. 70,000-100,000 persons from outside their country are in that country and some are fighting each other. How do they know that and who these people are? The mysterious Saudi's have fighters there and can turn whatever on and off when they want and will pay us to do their dirty work? So Kerry has said.

Then I saw a town hall here where a young man said the leader of Syria has been crossing red lines for 2 years. He also said that somebody else was in that country early on. Reminded me of the snitch of Iraq who also lied about something Saddam had done and got asylum in Germany afterwards and later confessed he lied us into war against Saddam; cause he had a personal beef with him. Anyone remember that? He won't come out of Germany; he last I heard. Lot of Hollywood theatrics. staging. What's truth? Americans suffer.. Americans and others sacrifice and are the wounded and halt and maimed and mentally scarred and scared, changed..

I really see that little by little we are getting a picture of who the players are. Is that country or has that country been being de-stabilized and no matter what he leader does to protect his country he is the bad guy..? One can only wonder.. Then I heard our FAMOUS CIA IS THERE... who knows how long that has been going on.

Now here we are being asked to shed life and treasure again.

Listening to John Mccain plead and beg at his town hall bought back memories when he and congress begged the. young ,to support some military objective and all the promises they made about supporting them. They didn't follow thru.. Matter of fact, they were right nasty about it. My memory told me.. they just didn't care after the fact what happened to them.

If it wasn't for Military guys sticking up for their own, our congress is quick to tell us they are broke as they give our money to the Oligarths., in whatever manner makes that happen. I am appalled that in a crisis they make a big deal about food stamps and anyone getting them; while their stomachs are ever over-filled.

If Prez Obama insist about this moral authority bit; I say the door is now open to bring the last leaderships etal up in the high courts on crimes against humanitiy. Since we are in the morality wars...

Another thing.. I don't like how whistleblowers are treated when wrong doing is going on in war times like what happened in the Manning saga and government reaction.

The Republicans pundits mock and laugh how the world stage has mocked and belittled Obama and how embarrassing it is.

Let it be known... because of all of you the world has not thought anything of America for a long time. Especially how you have treated his presidency and how he tries to over-sell his soul to your causes against our will, every time he has caved to you and reach across the aisle to appease you and then you mock him and here we go again trying to shore his Bush acting self interest up.

Lastly we big weapons countries create the ied's and the kamakzi's and the uni-bombers out of the desperation that is left to them.
We countries need to treat people right in the first place so we don't have these outcomes. Sorry this is so long... I'm done.

Nancy M (197)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 11:32 am
It was an interesting decision. It may allow for more particpation from The People who will write to Congress. And it creates something that could end up being bi-partisan for a change. I hope they might the right decision. And I hope Obama honors it.

Kit B (276)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 11:35 am

Many of the experts and pundits are saying that if Obama does not have support of the Congress, he will look weak in the eyes of the world. I think if that should happen and he does this anyway it is weaker than thanking the Congress and the people by abiding by that decision. I realize that would not be easy to do, but it would be the right thing to do.

Nancy M (197)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 11:41 am

I understand that Kit. I guess that I personally don't care how he looks. I have a feeling thought that Repubs will come through for him.

Honestly looking forward to 2016.

. (0)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 11:43 am
A] The doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance foisted on the world as intervention against the very puppets they installed and maintained for years is at work here. The whole intention is to ring Iran with Sunni regimes thereby reducing their influence and isolating them. The Saudis are quite worried about Iranian influence in the region. The Elite's are intent on remaking the world in their image and according to their economic game plan.
B] Funding many of these rebels is merely unleashing the vitriol and criminal violence of these extremist agencies who are affiliated with Al Qaeda among others. Many of them are just as brutal as Assad or Hussein. They care not for the people who they consider expendable and worthy only of creating a tragic photo op in order to gain the world's sympathy.
C] We should not be funding them or any other regime. We should be assisting with the human rights violations and the needs of the refugees. The POTUS would have us believe that our oil and national interests around the world are threatened. How can that be when this is part of the game plan and King Barky takes his orders from the Elites?

l L (1)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 12:53 pm
A year or so back; I read that Saudi was really owned by the U.S.. I was stunned. I don't know what is true.
As well? China in the 80's American corps moved there with Our elite. So I am so confused to whose mouth is coming out of China. The Bush's name came up in that one. Then.

So nice to have these discussions. Nancy? you make a good point. My worry too. WW#3

l L (1)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 1:27 pm
Just to let you know; Some pic's are being shown to the world via Obama etal and at this hour MSNBC pundits are featuring lawmakers now swayed by these hundreds of pics shown to the world about children and people appearing to be dying from nerve gas poisoning.
The lawmakers face is black He is swayed more.

I don't care what Obama presents or any of them. BECAUSE you are such liars, continually and Bush imitators .. repeatedly.. I will never believe.. And the fact you can never do right by home and need to be told we are war weary and you are just not into us.. I won't be on your side..

And these pundits that I thought were crediable and have shown me what they are about. I won't listen to you anymore. So enjoy your paycheck with out me.
There is nothing right about this

. Why should I have expected anything different from Any of you?

I know what is coming next. A blank check for our demise.

After all they all gave us NDAA.

Angelika R (143)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 3:19 pm
Kit: "...I realize that would not be easy to do, but it would be the right thing to do." I agree- unfortunately Obama does not. The president would consider such action “the right thing to do” even if US Congress withheld its support, as stresses by Kerry and ambassador to the UN Samantha Power.
Meantime we learned more about the expanded scope of US operation: US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses.(

Kit B (276)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 3:28 pm

This seems to me to be an excellent time to rebuild relations with Iran, allow them to assist with Syria and settle a couple of problems with diplomacy. Yes, I know what is cooking in the possible military alternative and it bodes no good out comes.

Kit B (276)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 4:16 pm

The world mega corporations just popped an artery that we even would dare consider the possibility of ways to peace.

Past Member (0)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 4:35 pm
There will come a day soon when ten times as many Syrians have died from American intervention as have died in the Syrian civil war; when 75,000 plus American soldiers in Syria to guard the regime's chemical weapon facilities face a hostile Syrian opposition, including al-Qaeda and Jahbat al-Nusra forces, that also possess and have used chemical weapons; when our President and our nation finds themselves increasingly isolated from the global community of nations; and when the word quagmire becomes the kindest descriptor of the American predicament... on that day, people shall ask:

Mr, President, was all this worth it just to control the Syrian LNG pipeline?

Are we a better nation for having let ourselves be used as a proxy by Saudi Arabia in its struggle for regional dominance with Iran?

Has committing the US to yet another campaign of devastation in the Middle East improved the economy or the jobs situation at home sufficiently to justify all the lives ruined by what everyone except for Secretary Kerry calls what it is, a war?


Kit B (276)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 5:12 pm

Oh Ros, now your just teasing.

Bryan S (105)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 5:36 pm
Kit, i'm kind of confused by the article in it's focus on Obama's potential political troubles by asking for congressional approval. Well who cares about political troubles, isn't it supposed to be the law that the president gets congressional approval for military action? Of course that's been circumvented before, but it suppoesed to be the law.

I think it's comical that it's argued that US "credibility" will be threatened if we don't bomb now because of the "red line" thing. And just exactly how much "credibility" does the US have in the Mid-East now!?? Sickening that anyone could suggest that the our tough-guy image is anything to be considered here.

I agree that this is the time to negotiate with Iran, and all the interests supplying weapons and soldiers. We should be trying to cut off the flow of weapons into Syria instead of thinking firing missiles into the country will help. But the only interest is gaining power in this strategic part of the world.

Bryan S (105)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 5:39 pm
Oh there's certainly more room for more dead people in areas where resources are more important that consumers in the eyes of our corporate leaders.

Sherri G (128)
Saturday September 7, 2013, 9:41 pm
Wow excellent dialogue here sent stars all around. I have given up the President and why he does what he does or does not do. I still remember the President's biggest backer for President was Goldman Sacs. I still remember he spouts the fracking propaganda lie of jobs and energy independence. I still remember his budget includes cutting social security via a chain CPI when social security doesn't contribute one cent to the deficit or the debt. The President I supported with my vote and contributions looks more like Bush everyday. Exposing all the facts requires we FOLLOW THE MONEY. The American People do have an opportunity here to rally the troops to remind the President and Congress who in the hell they work for. Thank You Kit noted and all participants in this spirited discussion.

Kit B (276)
Sunday September 8, 2013, 6:49 am

Ros and I were discussing some of this in personal messages, and I expand my own vision of this. I do not think that smoothing the situation with Iran is alone the final answer. We need to realize that a the primary military countries, both the US and Russia have an important stake in settling the problems in Syria. Opening discussions with Iran is but one of the many elements of this. Putin is a hard liner he is the last of the old USSR mind set. I think that bringing together all the parties, and that includes Israel, Saudi Arabia, even China who is showing military interest in this, would be healthy for the long term, but a mammoth undertaking. The by product of these efforts could be a regional solution to Syria, of greater importance is the long term solution to problems not yet seen. We just do not benefit as a people to be in a cold war with half the planet. I do realize it is beneficial to many corporate interests and they will guard those interests jealously, but I suggest the corporate interests are of far less importance than the beginnings of long term peace.

Bryan, the constitution addresses a declared war and as you know US presidents have found ways to skirt this many times in the past. Would Obama ignore the Congress? People are being paid Big Bucks by all of the TV networks to express an opinion about this. I would say that Obama is not that predictable, and none of us have any idea about the next gambit.

I think we are all a bit naive to expect presidents or leaders to have the freedom to not follow the tune of the pipers and we know those pipers are big business. The arms industry is huge, owns also every elected official in Washington DC, that is not a small thing to ignore. I'm not sure it can be ignored.

l L (1)
Sunday September 8, 2013, 7:21 pm
I wrote a good piece just got kicked off and it didn't post.. Anyone find it would you post it for me?

l L (1)
Sunday September 8, 2013, 8:35 pm
I don't feel like typing that post again. But there isother information outthere. I must of posted something really important for it to have a reaction like that. We are being lied to. I hope the world finds this out before Obama and our thugs do the ssame as they did the world with Iraq. Nothing like being duped again. they know they are lying and not only that children get your heart strings. Nobody elses kids bug them as being in demise except this scenario if whatever the truth is, like this one. We all know Obama is not that much of a caring man. Drone strikes remember and how he has shielded Bush. I am counting on y'all not to get caught up in the deception.

Kit B (276)
Sunday September 8, 2013, 8:54 pm

I don't know what happened Lyn. I will post it for you if it comes to my inbox.

l L (1)
Monday September 9, 2013, 4:27 pm
Thx kit.. I could write it again.. all I could do to write it correct it and push submit. It's in cyber world somewhere. I care about children and peoples of world. Yet I care about home to and I try so hard to weight everything and pay attention to detail as best as I can. And I am not the only one.. Even if Hilliary would join the ranks of voices to strike Syria... I would not follow her. After all; she did enable Bush etal and ended up being sorry for it when it hi the crapper.
I saw a moderated conversation on RT News about "Strike Syria". A woman from LLC? and a ex American Beauracrat discussed information and possibilities. In studying her. I wondered; what those people want us to deliver the winning blow for their choice of civil war; which they remain peaceful about...Even tho.. the people already involved to be their saviors are not peaceful. Why does America need to be in this?
We have our own problems. Are we wrong to want t take care of us for a change?
You know; kit and others, a country is well on it's way of being de-stabilized before the 1st reactive protest..
The strain of this race towards fascism has strained the entire world and these countries are feeling it.
The main people they are calling to deliver them are the drum majors for his one world government. Which is about fascism and has always wanted Syria's demise.
It amazes me how dumb we are.. Me included..

Do we understand about death and destruction and movie and theater craft. We blow it up we build it up but we have no money. supplies or intelligent manpower and we keep doing the same things Movies and theater craft.. What is really the truth;? they wag the dog doctor up stuff and collaborations
I guess planet earth is a penal colony where we are born to experience this nonsense. What else could it be? Cause it makes no sense, to me.

Kit B (276)
Monday September 9, 2013, 4:35 pm

Currently it seems that diplomacy just might win the day. Russia and Syria are willing to sit down and discuss getting rid of the stockpiles of chemical weapons. We will see what Obama has to say about this, currently there is nothing firm and we have to hope it's genuine.

l L (1)
Monday September 9, 2013, 6:17 pm
tfor all u u say...we shall see

I have been over reading about a nun
; in Damascus and a hoax.

But in reading it.. her contribution, to alerting us that things are not as they have been made to appear, I cannot understand it.. what she is saying clearing. These pic's about these dead kids she says ...where did these kids come from? That community is not a family community? I wish someone could make heads or tails of this. I believe we will tho.

Remember H.A.A.R.P? the weather wmd item? Russian and etal better watch out for this.. The U.S. has this thing and uses it.. even on the U.S. I am more than sure we will. use it on people who would dare take up for themselves.
Have floods will travel and storms and hail, wind and a million mile high and wide hurricane.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday September 10, 2013, 7:43 am

Obama plans to try and make this offer a reality. We can not ask for more than that. He willing to allow the Syrians and Russians to work with the UN to dismantle and destroy all the chemical weapons. If they are sincere this should happen relatively soon.

l L (1)
Tuesday September 10, 2013, 2:19 pm
Kit and all? It is Tuesday the 10th. I saw a little of RT news and Algeezera, ABC MSNBC saw the deal being talked about as you have mentioned. Saw Obama and Kerry and Mrs Rice... I got mad all over again and really became ashamed..
Now Obama is smart enough to outwit everyone with war powers approvals trickery and what it seemingly produced, that couldn't have happened without the "threat " of military strike on Syria. The biggie is... now because of that maneuver.. Kerry says let's follow thru and make it even look better and all congress vote yes to give the white house war powers to show the world we mean business we are behind them.

I think we have gone completely stark raving mad and totally neo-con.. Just go back to the Iraq war playbook and step by step it is that book they are working off of.

Not only that Russia now says.. this was the plan all along at the G-20 summit.. to put a stop to this invasion.. that was in play before the chemical assault on the 1400? I wish we could get our stories straight.

Another thing; Now ? is there a false flag on Israel? cause this pres. is yet looking to have reasons to invade...

It will come out.. what is the real reason for all of this. War crimes.. crimes against humanity. Release those people at gitmo. free Bradley Manning..Pardon him... Let Snowdon get somewhere safe... Stop killing people with drones..Innocents are being killed.. Tell the truth. Invest in schools..public schools and cities. re-build. Give the pensions back, reverse the republican agendas, take the clause out that ties student loans to the stock market. Feed people, that's the least you can do and stop using us to fight your made up wars..
I hated it when we were called "takers" and here you are coaxing us to fight for another lie and still pushing for it.
Of course this is for the morally majority like this president and the neo-cons. If you are so morally incline prove - it. take care of home. Cause I don't believe you.. I actually called them con men today. Something is still amiss.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday September 10, 2013, 8:21 pm

Things are looking better. The Syrians are ready to dismantle the chemicals, the Russians might be helpful and diplomacy is the answer for now. I think we have to consider this a lucky break. If something is a miss, we are not going to know what that is, but we do know that rather than bombing tonight, people are talking.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.