The White House’s aggressive push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria appeared to have won the tentative support of one of President Obama’s most hawkish critics, Senator John McCain, who said Monday that he would back a limited strike if the president did more to arm the Syrian rebels and the attack was punishing enough to weaken the Syrian military....
There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.
No, seriously. Cannot even make these things up.
In remarks to reporters outside the West Wing, he called the meeting “encouraging,” urged lawmakers to support Mr. Obama in his plan for military action in Syria and said a no vote in Congress would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world. Mr. McCain said he believed after his conversation with the president that any strikes would be “very serious” and not “cosmetic.
"Catastrophic".
Exaggerate much?
Look. Obama painted himself in a corner with his red line talk. I told y'all that already. Should have never done it. So this whole congressional approval thing is about getting out from under that by being able to place blame and responsibility on congress regardless of whether "approval" is given or not. The best case scenario here is that Congress grows a pair and says "no".
“The debate is shifting away from ‘Did he use chemical weapons?’ to ‘What should be done about it?' ”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The debate should be
who used chemical weapons since there still hasn't been proof of use by either side. And please spare me the speech about what the rebels do and do not have and what they would and would not do. I've seen suicide bombings in mosques. So please.
In regards to "what should be done about it", that is the job for the UN. And if the UN was actually a functioning neutral body the US would find itself in problems for Libya, providing Saddam with cover for using chemical weapons against Iran and the use of Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq which is the source of many medical problems.
Yeah. All during the 2008 campaign I heard McSame....and now who's front and center.
Two sides of the same coin.
