make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

President Obama to seek approval from Congress before taking action in Syria

READ MORE:
syriapotus.jpg

WASHINGTON, DC (ABCNews.com) -- President Obama announced today that the US should pursue military intervention against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for use of chemical weapons in that country's civil war, but only after his administration seeks approval from Congress.

The president hopes Congress will debate and vote on a US strike when they return from their summer recess, scheduled to end Sept. 9.

"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," Obama said from the White House's Rose Garden. "We should have this debate.

"This attack is an assault on human dignity," the president added. "It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons or their proliferation to terrorist groups who'd do our people harm. In a world with many dangers this menace must be confronted."

Obama then left with Vice President Biden for a golf game.

Click here to read more at ABCNews.com

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

This should appeal to Republicans...

How about we use faulty intelligence, tell everyone that Syria has WMD's, launch a full scale invasion, declare "Mission Accomplished" two weeks in, then hang around for ten more years while the casualties rack up. Everyone seemed to agree with that strategy.

Learn some History

Some of the Repugs on here need to learn some history, and stop saying that President Obama is blood thirsty and draging us to war only because he is a Dem. ( World War II, Roosevelt ) ( Korean War, Truman ) (Vietnam War, Johnson ) (Invasion of Grenada, Reagon ) ( Invasion of Libya, Reagon ) (Invasion of Panama, Bush ) ( Gulf War, Bush) ( invasion of somalia, Clinton ) ( AFGHANISTAN, BUSH) ( IRAQ WAR, BUSH) the list goes on and on and many were not noted, Does it really matter what side they were on? Dem Or Rep? All Presidents have been forced into this decision, some agree some dont. But to Blame Dems is just crazy. Learn some history on War, learn your Presidents before you place blame. All Im hearing is "the black dem president, is starting a war". I voted for President Obama, I support most of his views. Do I agree with war no, but sometimes there is no other way. What does make me angry is when rednecks get on here and think this is the only time in history a president has mad this choice.

Bush was not alone in

Bush was not alone in sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The democrats supported it just as much as the republicans. I don't care about the letter behind Obama's name any more than I cared about the letter behind Bush's name. None of the wars you mentioned should have US involvement. The federal government had no Constitutional authority to enter into any of those wars and it doesn't have the Constitutional authority to intervene in Syria.

We have so many problems here that need our attention. We need to take care of ourselves instead of entering endless war after endless war where there will never be a solution. Nothing that the US has done, or will do will ever change the situation in the Middle East. They will continue to torture and kill each other, no matter what the US does. It's not right to send our people over there to help people who hate us. That means that men and women are making sacrifices for nothing. It's all a lost cause and we have no business being in it.

Very sorry

I would of posted more but I was on a very sort break.. the reason why I listed those was to show wars we should of not been in... my example was to show apple for apples.. my post was to those who have posted that only Obama would do this, this was my reply to them. Do I agree on starting a war No but I wanted to let people know this is not the first of its kind and will not be the last.

History

You might want to read a little more history yourself. You have a few of the leaders wrong and no I am not a member of the Republican nor Democrat Party.

Very sorry

Very sorry I was on a 15 min lunch break, would you like me to go back 200 years for you when I have time? I will be happy to on both sides.

Good idea

That's a great idea and try to get their places in history right this time.

punish them till it hurts

I think we all know the seriousness of people who don't respect life having chemical warfare in their hands. We all also understand the ramifications if and when this chemical gets to the United States. . and we all know one day it will.

Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking but it's like our judicial system. You can go out and do anything you want to do and 99.99 percent of criminals don't pay for their crime. We are lax, lazy and indifferent to crimes against our neighbors.

I don't advocate war at all. Believe me, I lost friends in Viet Nam and I'm in no hurry to be involved in overseas fighting. However, look at it this way. If we don't do anything. . if these idiots can kill these innocent people, children and be allowed to sit in a corner and laugh at their accomplishments what is that going to do to protect us later down the line? Just like criminals in jail. . they get out and repeat their offenses over and over and over. They need to be punished to the point it hurts before they will quit. I feel the same way about Syria. If these people aren't punished to the point it hurts this is going to spread like wildfire.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong but don't come at me with insults. Explain to me why you feel you are right and I am wrong. I honestly believe in how I feel and what I am saying.

Why do you believe it to be the responsibility of the US...

...to perform as judge, jury and executioner to the middle eastern Neanderthals? ESPECIALLY when NO other major world power is willing to be by our side in support? Those people have been determined to snuff themselves out for thousands of years. They have elevated their methods from rocks to rifles to chemicals. They care nothing about themselves, their elderly or their children.

To your point, we have sectors of our own society that care nothing about themselves, don't respect life, society, law and destroy others. Our own judicial system fails us with that. So, just what is it that you seem to think qualifies us, as a 400 year old government to go play babysitter for one that has been in existence for thousands of years?

I honestly believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus at one point in my life. Later, I found that I was wrong too.

guest o matic

I'm not a child and this has nothing to do with the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. It amazes me that such an immature thought could cross your mind after the previous comment you typed. I don't have time to respond to insults and if this is the best you can do, talk to someone else.

Check....Checkmate!

I don't approve of us becoming involved in Syria , but Obama has once again proven himself a masterful politician by just having pulled the rug out from under the GOP's congressional campaign strategy for 2014. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will need fresh crying pillows.

RSimmons

I agree completely however at what cost?
After the Iraq debacle where questionable intelligence was used to sway Congressional approval, I's surprised they'd want to get involved at all !!!!
Obama made a MISTAKE when he "drew a line in the sand." That was a stupid comment, for sure
But going to Congress to get approval is a political stroke of genius. If they say "No" he is unscathed.
If they say "Yes" he lobs a few bombs and walks away claiming victory.

McCain and Graham however want to put boots on the ground. THAT's going a bit overboard.
The whole situation is convoluted with many previous hawks claiming we shouldn't play judge jury and executioner when in fact, thats exactly what Congress authorized Bush to do in Iraq albeit on false pretenses of WMD existance.
When the WMDs ween't found many hawks were using the gassing of the kurds as justification of the war. I think there's a justifiable reluctance on Congress part to authorize a strike. By NOT voting for the strike we risk looking weak when in fact Obama has been fairly straightforward with his continue persecution of Afpakistan, and the capture of Bin Laden.
Political victory? Maybe but I'm not sure it will be worth it.
Th mideast is just plain too bizarre.....
Vog

Playing politics with the

Playing politics with the threat of war makes Obama a sleezbag. And that is his weakness.

Democrat = hypocrite.

Democrat = hypocrite.

Say what you will about

Say what you will about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I would bet you the Joint Chiefs would much rather be dealing with them compared to the current crew.

We never learn

Afpakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebannon.

over years of fighting - Russians, Americans, British against the inhabitants of that regions we have failed to do ANYTHING that has resulted in long term democracy taking hold.
Iraq has degenerated, Iran is already a theocracy Egypt maygo that way soon.

This region of the world just doesn't accept democracy as a good form of government, and more importantly, when democratic republics ARE formed, the religious leaders use that as a way to gain control so they can change government into a theocracy.
Our foreign policy in the Mideast has been an abysmal failure for both political parties and the various factions therein. Clinton failed, Bush failed, Obama is failing.
We need to be out of that region, IMHO and maintain alliances with those that WANT to be our friends....
It is a very strange part of the world

Vog

The final sentence in the article says it all...

"Obama then left with Vice President Biden for a golf game."

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Obama golfs while the USA goes down in flames. You get what you vote for...hope you're happy.

"Obama then left with Vice

"Obama then left with Vice President Biden for a golf game."

They must have had a lousy teacher huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc

Congress always wants to run the show over Obama...now let them.
Or...Obama could simply act as Bush did, and attack anyway, in which case, so Cheney could hopefully go for his dream back then, of controlling Middle East Oil...so (Quote) "No One Would F**k with Us Anymore!!" (Unquote)
That plan fell through huh? Don't think so? Then read this>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/us/2004-campaign-vice-president-cheney...

This news article may not be on Middle East oil control...but the behind the door scenes of the Bush Administration bares as much attack as you present to Obama's. It's a Two Sided Coin...isn't it?

(Quote) "You get what you vote for...hope you're happy." (Unquote)
Were you with Bush...assuming you voted Bush in?
So the story goes....something like that!

In typical libtard fashion

In typical libtard fashion you are factually incorrect. Bush got Congressional approval for the use of force in Iraq. Please learn facts before posting your ignorance.

Love jerking you Wilmington

Love jerking you Wilmington Repub's around.
Oh the Bush years...best years of your life I suppose. You are authorities on everything...and know little to nothing except how to run your non conforming mouths.
Truth be known about your group of hard knocks...you are racial, nothing more, nothing less.

This is a stupid plan of attack

I do not understand the US giving warnings before they strike. This is not the first time and Syria will have ample time to remove the chemicals and store them somewhere else. Why not have the vice and narcotics units of the WPD and the Sheriff's office post every Monday exactly where they intend to raid that week? Also have a posting to let everyone know where the speed traps will be and where the road blocks are going to be. Good Lord!

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton was known as Slick Willy, but he is a novice compared to the spineless snake Obama.

Obama has never wanted to bomb Syria. He backed himself into a corner by running his big mouth about crossing the Red Line. Now he is up to his evasive tactic of run and hide till the problem goes away.

If Congress doesn't approve action, he's off the hook. If they do, he and the Media will blame them for the military action.

Hail to the Chief.

Spot on

In this particular case it was really a simple matter of engaging brain before speaking. He didn't.

As a result of his faux pas, America will lose credibility regardless of whichever way they play it. That jeopardizes our own security.

POTUS gets an F- on this one.

Bush did the same thing

Don't be such an uninformed dolt...

Please explain.

What is your point? What exactly is it that you are trying to say here? If you're going to make such a broad statement about Bush, you MUST tell us exactly what Bush did so each of us can examine that for ourselves. Also, not fair to call everyone "uninformed dolts without explaining why you're doing it.

why not enlighten us all

which Bush

what did he do

waiting for your enlightenment

guest22, you have hit the

guest22, you have hit the nail on the head, you are 100% right on.