Impeachment warning - from a Democrat ?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-constitution-requires-congressional-authorization-use-force-against-syria_751350.html

6:05 PM, AUG 28, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler appears to be warning President Obama in a statement released today on striking Syria. "Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria," reads the title of Nadler's statement.

The text of the statement reads:

The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress -- not by the President. The decision to go to war -- and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war -- is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.

Nadler is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223932

( We must stop the Uniparty of War mongers - ostensible Democrats and Republicans , war mongers none the less )

Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

As The Independent says this morning:

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
....
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This morning I saw John Mc(****)Stain on CNBS trying to justify what appears to be a now-inevitable attack on Syria's government.

There are several problems with this, far beyond what The Independent lays forth -- although that's enough standing alone.

The biggest problem is that while I'm quite-convinced that someone used chemical weapons in Syria I am not convinced and it certainly has not been proved that it was the Syrian Government that did so.

Never mind all the connections that appear to be present between the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, the "rebels" in Syria and the botched operation in Benghazi, among others.

Many people throw around the word "Treason" with wild abandon, but it in fact has a rather-precise definition. Treason is the act of waging war against one's own nation or consciously and purposefully aiding its enemies in a time of war.

Specifically:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If this attack goes forward then I believe there is a clean argument that McCain, Obama and every other member of the Congress and military who willingly and knowingly participates or permits, with the ability to refuse or stop said attack, has committed this crime.

Al-Qaida is a declared enemy of the United States. This is not a matter of speculation, it is by their own name, hand and actions, including the attacks of 9/11and those that both preceded and followed that event.

It is that specific threat that has led both President Bush and Obama to extend the formal state of emergency that has existed since 9/11 and which extends to this day. Absent that justification the declared state of emergency is unconstitutional and by itself a violation of the oath of office and would constitute levying war on the citizens of this nation.

I believe a clean case can be made that arming these "rebels", along with what was going on in Benghazi, has already crossed that line.

But attacking the Syrian Government, irrespective of the justification, would absolutely constitute providing material aid and comfort to the militantswho are known to be Al-Qaida affiliated.

If, as I suspect, it turns out that it was the Al-Qaida-linked rebels who actually used the chemical weapons then we will have joined a war on the side of Al-Qaida after they used chemical munitions!

But what if I'm wrong about that? What if Syria's government used the chemical weapons instead?
Then we're still providing material aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States.
This one can't be justified folks, no matter which way the facts on the ground fall.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/syria-a-mission-destined-for-failure/

( Apart from the Constitutional issue and williness to spring forward without an UN authorization, just is the plan here ? Does this approach seem likely to get Assad attention - in the way we want , not as knucklehead amateurs ? The lurch into immediate action with an over the top response - didn't we just see this with the multiple Middle East / North Africa / Asian US Embassy closings and crazy series of drones attacks on anyone driving vehicles in Yemen ? )

Syria: A mission destined for failure

POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON AUGUST 28, 2013 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN

One of the first things any military commander must do is define the mission clearly and succinctly. It must have a goal and that goal must be achievable with the assets the commander is willing or able to commit to the mission.

What it shouldn’t be is some nebulous one-over-the-world hand wave of a mission driven by politics and open to interpretation. Unfortunately, it appears that’s precisely the type mission the Obama administration is ginning up for Syria according to the NY Times:

President Obama is considering military action against Syria that is intended to “deter and degrade” President Bashar al-Assad’s government’s ability to launch chemical weapons, but is not aimed at ousting Mr. Assad from power or forcing him to the negotiating table, administration officials said Tuesday.

“Deter and degrade” are open to interpretation and Syria could and likely would initiate another chemical attack after the US attacks just to point out that they’re neither deterred or degraded.

Here’s the problem:

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets.

A) We’ve told them where we’ll strike. Since it is a limited strike and it is going to be against specific units, Syria has the option of dispersing them, an option I’m sure they’ll take. They’ll also likely disperse them in to highly populated urban areas where they can.

B) We’ve told them what we’re going to strike. Since they have thousands of artillery pieces capable of firing chemical shells, it is unlikely a limited strike is going to even seriously dent that capability. Moving artillery into the cities would likely deter the US more than the US would deter Syria. Helicopters can be moved as well. They don’t need long runways. Other aircraft will be dispersed And finally, command and control are easily moved and dispersed.

C) We’ve told them how we’re going to strike. It is clear that if an attack does happen it is not something that is supported by the majority of the American people for various reasons. Couple that with a seemingly risk averse commander and you can pretty well define how this will happen – missiles. Specifically Tomahawk missiles. Given our history of their use, you can pretty much guess at what and where they’ll be aimed.

D) We’ve pretty well told them it won’t be much of a strike.

Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site, a far more limited unleashing of American military power than past air campaigns over Kosovo or Libya.

Result?

Well even the administration knows this is a recipe for failure so they immediately engage is a classic attempt to lower expectations:

Some of the targets would be “dual use” systems, like artillery that is capable of firing chemical weapons as well as conventional rounds. Taking out those artillery batteries would degrade to some extent the government’s conventional force — but would hardly cripple Mr. Assad’s sizable military infrastructure and forces unless the air campaign went on for days or even weeks.

The goal of the operation is “not about regime change,” a State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said Tuesday. Seeking to reassure the public that the United States would not be drawn into a civil war in the Middle East, and perhaps to lower expectations of what the attack might accomplish, Obama administration officials acknowledged that their action would not accomplish Mr. Obama’s repeated demand that Mr. Assad step down.

And what would we accomplish? Well likely the opposite of what we hoped would happen – deterrence and degradation. Assad would be invited to prove the US wasn’t successful in either by doing what? Using chemical weapons once again. His reasoning would be that since he’s being accused of doing so, and supposedly punished for doing so, there’s no reason not to do it again.

Then what?

~McQ

UN Urges US to Wait as Arab League Opposes Attacking Syria

UN: Just Give Us Four Days for Inspection

by Jason Ditz, August 28, 2013

Print This | Share This

The first US attacks on Syria could begin in a matter of hours, as UN officials are pleading with the hawkish Obama Administration to at least give them another four days to carry out an investigation into the putative chemical weapons attack.

Investigators are already on the ground and say they can be done within just a few short days, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said it was important to establish the facts before the war was launched.

The US has fought vigorously against the inspections, insisting that they are “too late,” that the official US narrative of what happened in Syria was “undeniable” and the UN needed to withdraw inspectors.

Experts say that the “too late” argument makes no sense, and that evidence of a real chemical weapons attack would last years and be virtually impossible to “cover up.” The US is still expected to start the war before the probe finishes, however, if for no other reason than to avoid the UN throwing a monkey wrench into their ambitions by revealing that the narrative is false.

The Arab League is also complicating matters after the US assumed they were on board, saying that while they endorse the US-rebel narrative they oppose military action against Syria.

The US has been desperately trying to shore up international support for the war, but apart from Britain and France they don’t appear to be getting much formal backing.

Still, that doesn’t seem to be dampening spirits at the White House, where war season is officially here and attacks are imminent. The last conceivable obstacle in their minds is the British parliament, since Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking some legal cover by wanting parliament to endorse his involvement. The US Congress will not be asked.

http://www.infowars.com/syria-us-aided-terrorists-in-chemical-attack-europe-next/

( Is the unseemly rush by the UK and US to start War with syria based on fears that plots may be revealed implicating other parties than the Assad government in War crimes - aka chemical warfare against civilian population . Crimes against humanity . Syria says dig deeper UN , dig deeper....)

Syria: US Aided Terrorists in Chemical Attack, Europe Next

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

View through face mask of two soldiers wearing protective chemical weapons clothing holding guns in foxhole / Army image

In an explosive declaration, Syria’s deputy foreign minister has now come out on record in declaring that the US, Britain, and France were instrumental in aiding the chemical attacks on Syria through a network of terrorists inside the country.

Going further with the intel on the subject, the Syrian official now says that the next target will be Europe. Confirming earlier reports by myself and powerhouse journalist Paul Joseph Watson that there was a US government element involved in the planning of the key chemical attacks as documented by Yahoo News, the deputy foreign minister told reporters outside of the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus that he had even presented the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors with bombshell information that reveals the US helped in ‘arming terrorist groups’ to carry out the attacks.

The admission is now featured on Reuters as a headline piece titled ‘Syria says ‘terrorists’ will strike Europe with chemical weapons’. The report goes on to state:

“Syria’s deputy foreign minister said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Syria, and that the same groups would soon use them against Europe. Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence that “armed terrorist groups” had used sarin gas in all the sites of alleged attacks.”

To break it down plainly, the deputy foreign minister is now adding power behind the January 2013 leaked emails that revealed plans for a major chemical attack as a pretext to war. And regardless of the validity of these emails, it highlights the consistent patterns of staged attacks in order to launch military action. In one such report from Yahoo News, the story reads:

“The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to usechemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.”

But it’s not just the Syrian government saying this, or even just the largest website in the world (Yahoo) publishing this information through AIN. Even World Net Daily and highly reputable researcher Dr. Jerome Corsi have reached the same conclusions in their own investigations that this chemical attack was likely carried out by the Obama-backed rebels. Yesterday, Dr. Jerome Corsi shared similar revelations that now coincide with this groundbreaking report.

Full story at Storyleak

Bombshell: Evidence Syrian Rebels Carried Out Gas Attack

“It’s one of the most serious moments in world history US has ever faced”

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

In an interview with Alex Jones, American author and political commentator Dr. Jerome R. Corsi confirmed that Syrian rebels were behind the sarin gas attack in Syria last week. Video evidence and reliable Middle Eastern sources on the ground, Corsi says, prove Syrian rebels launched the attack in an attempt to take over the Syrian government.

He believes if the United States moves towards war with Syria it will surely result in World War 3.

After news broke of the alleged chemical weapons attack, Secretary of State John Kerry took to the stage giving a speech in which he called the attack a “cowardly crime” and a moral “obscenity.” Kerry claims to have “undeniable” proof of the Syrian government’s guilt, however unsurprisingly he failed to offer it to the public.

In an interview with a Russian newspaper, Syrian President Bashar Assad called the allegations “preposterous” and “completely politicized,” reported the LA Times. “How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?”

Corsi argues several reasons for the US not to go to war with Syria. First off, the US cannot financially or economically sustain another war. “Russia and China are not borrowing $1 trillion a year to make their budget, and the world knows it,” said Corsi. Secondly, public opinion is not there, and it’s most likely not going to get there.

“The ramifications of getting into a shooting match with Russia and China is unpredictable,” said Dr. Corsi. “Risking a confrontation with Russia and possibly China is quite frightening and would become one of the most serious moments in US history.”

When Alex asked Dr. Corsi how Obama plans to get away with starting a war like this, he said Obama probably intends to continue “lying with impunity.”

A report by WND reveals evidence assembled from various Middle Eastern sources that “cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.”

Photo: Dr. Jerome Corsi

WND’s report says two YouTube videos show what looks like “Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.”

A screen capture from a Syrian TV report shows a chemical agent that appears to have been made in a “Saudi factory.” Another report from RT illustrates “captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia and gas masks,” support Russian claims that rebels are the culprits.

The report further states that an intercepted phone call between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia and his Saudi Arabian boss indicates Syrian terrorists, not the Assad government, were behind the chemical weapons attack.

“The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.

“The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus,” reported WND.

Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack

Intercepted phone calls indicate Syrian government did not order attack

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Intercepted phone calls that will be presented by the Obama administration as proof that Bashar Al-Assad was behind last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria actually suggest that the attack was not ordered by the Syrian government.

Phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense intercepted by Mossad and passed to the US reveal that Syrian government officials, “exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people,” in the hours after last week’s attack.

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be making panicked phone calls “demanding answers” about the attack if they had ordered it?

The fact that the highest levels of the Syrian government apparently had no knowledge of the attack strongly suggests that they did not order it, with the worst case scenario being that the attack was “the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds,” writes Foreign Policy’s Noah Shachtman.

“We don’t know exactly why it happened,” a US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

So despite not knowing exactly what happened, why it happened, or who ordered it, while sabotaging the UN’s investigation of the incident, the US is about to launch cruise missile attacks and potentially enflame the entire region based on evidence that actually suggests the Syrian government had no idea who was behind the chemical weapons attack.

Meanwhile, previous evidence that suggests the US-backed rebels prepared and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions has been completely forgotten in the rush to war.

The last time the United Nations investigated evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded that it was likely the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were behind the attacks.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.

There are also multiple other examples of video footage which shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.

The notion that Washington has any credibility when it comes to laying blame about weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.

The last time the world believed the United States’ claims about Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result.

The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster.

CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government, are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.

Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:

One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.

Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.

That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government – a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.

The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.

The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:

…if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.

Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.

This post originally appeared at Land Destroyer Report

Congress going to do its job or just play acting ?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/boehner-sends-obama-letter-demanding-clear-unambiguous-explanation-syrian-interventi

( The House demands answers from the President regarding Syria .... )

Boehner Sends Obama Letter Demanding "Clear, Unambiguous Explanation" For Syrian Intervention

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2013 17:58 -0400

Iran

national security

The letter below was sent a short while ago by House Speaker John Boehner to the president, voicing the Republican's displeasure with the Commander In chief, and criticizing the level of consultation about a potential military strike as well as demanding a clear explanation of any mission in advance of its start. Sadly, since not even Obama is quite clear why his Wall Street-based advisors demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response. Separately, as the WSJ reports, 114 House lawmakers— 97 Republicans and only 17 Democrats— have signed a letter calling on Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization before embarking on military action in Syria. We suspect that 17 would have been substantially greater if the president engaging in unauthorized war had a last name beginning with "Buh" and ending in "Oosh."

Full Boehner letter to Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

I deeply respect your role as our country’s commander-in-chief, and I am mindful that Syria is one of the few places where the immediate national security interests of the United States so visibly converge with broader U.S. security interests and objectives. Our nation’s response to the deterioration and atrocities in Syria has implications not just in Syria, but also for America’s credibility across the globe, especially in places like Iran.

Even as the United States grapples with the alarming scale of the human suffering, we are immediately confronted with contemplating the potential scenarios our response might trigger or accelerate. These considerations include the Assad regime potentially losing command and control of its stock of chemical weapons or terrorist organizations – especially those tied to al Qaeda – gaining greater control of and maintaining territory. How the United States responds also has a significant impact on the security and stability of U.S. allies in the region, which are struggling with the large exodus of Syrian refugees and the growing spillover of violence feeding off of ethnic and religious tensions. The House of Representatives takes these interests and potential consequences seriously in weighing any potential U.S. and international response in Syria.

Since March of 2011, your policy has been to call for a stop to the violence in Syria and to advocate for a political transition to a more democratic form of government. On August 18, 2012, you called for President Assad’s resignation, adding his removal as part of the official policy of the United States. In addition, it has been the objective of the United States to prevent the use or transfer of chemical weapons. I support these policies and publically agreed with you when you established your red line regarding the use or transfer of chemical weapons last August.

Now, having again determined your red line has been crossed, should a decisive response involve the use of the United States military, it is essential that you provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action – which is a means, not a policy – will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy. I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.

Specifically:

What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
Does the Administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?

I have conferred with the chairmen of the national security committees who have received initial outreach from senior Administration officials, and while the outreach has been appreciated, it is apparent from the questions above that the outreach has, to date, not reached the level of substantive consultation.

It will take Presidential leadership and a clear explanation of our policy, our interests, and our objectives to gain public and Congressional support for any military action against Syria. After spending the last 12 years fighting those who seek to harm our fellow citizens, our interests, and our allies, we all have a greater appreciation of what it means for our country to enter into conflict. It will take that public support and congressional will to sustain the Administration’s efforts, and our military, as well as their families, deserve to have the confidence that we collectively have their backs – and a thorough strategy in place.

I urge you to fully address the questions raised above.

Sincerely

John Boehner

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-congressman-boehner-call-house-back-now-deal-syria

( Will Congress demand that they actually be allowed to do their job as per the Constitution - regarding committing this nation to war ? )

GOP Congressman to Boehner: Call House Back Now to Deal With Syria

August 28, 2013 - 5:27 PM

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Rep. Scott Rigell, third from left, visiting with some U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan. (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Scott Rigell (R.-Va.)--who served six years in the Marine Corps Reserves, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents the congressional district with the largest concentration of military personnel of any in the nation--said today he is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to call the House back into session to prevent President Barack Obama from usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to authorize—or not authorize—the use of military force in Syria.

“He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”

"I do have a call scheduled with one of our senior leaders this afternoon and I will be making that case," said Rigell. "I think we're at this point, and I regret that we're at this point. But that is where we are."Rigell sent a letter to President Obama today—co-signed by a bipartisan group of “over 100” House members--reminding the president that it is “clearly delineated” in the Constitution that the president must seek congressional authorization before using military force unless the use of force is needed to protect the United States from an attack.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate—and the active engagement of Congress—prior to committing U.S. military assets,” Rigell wrote. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Obama expressed precisely this view of the constitutional war power when asked about the matter by the Boston Globe in an interview that was published on Dec. 20, 2007.

“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," Obama said at that time.

The draft language that the Constitutional Convention discussed on Aug. 17, 1787, according to notes that were taken that day by James Madison, gave Congress the power to “make war.” Madison himself and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." The convention accepted this change and the argument for it.

George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Constitution, acted on this understanding of the war power when he was president. In 1793, Washington wrote: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

Rigell said George Washington's understanding of the war power is reflected in the letter he and his colleagues have sent to the president.

“Prior to engaging U.S. forces, he must call us into joint session, make the case to the American people via their elected representatives—House and Senate--and seek and obtain statutory authority," said Rigell, "or if he is not successful in seeking or receiving that statutory authority, then he would be prohibited from taking action in Syria. It’s really that simple

Rigell said that if Obama does not do this he personally believes Boehner should call the House back into session immediately.

“Look, I don’t think it is in dispute that chemical weapons have been used," said Rigell. "I am quite sure that tragedy, as it unfolded, it is going to be clear that chemical weapons were used. And this is a tragic loss of life, and I think Secretary [of State John] Kerry was correct in describing it as a moral obscenity.

"Now, that said, the question is: What then, if anything, we should do here? And the president, in my view, has not been clear," said Rigell. "It is not clear what we are trying to achieve, or how it would be achieved. And, so, if that were brought to the floor for a vote, whether or not to initiate military action, I’d vote no. But I would also keep an open mind should the president follow the correct steps—and that is to call us into joint session and walk us through both what the facts are and what his logic is.

"I would be open to the argument," Rigell said. "But as the facts are presented today, I would vote no.”

Rigell said he believed there were only a “handful” of members of Congress on the Hill at this time--and that, in fact, while he has been up their working on this issue he had not run into anybody.

CNSNews.com asked Rigell what he would tell Speaker Boehner if he spoke to him right now.

Rigell said: “Mr. Speaker, based on what the president is saying right now, that I do think we need to get ahead of this. I think our conference needs to be bold and united—not only our conference, but so many members of the Democratic minority. It’s so important on this matter that it is not presented as a partisan matter. It is not. And the tone of our letter, though firm, is respectful. But it is unambiguous.

“I’d ask the speaker, look, get behind something,” said Rigell. ‘If not this letter, then something."

“I wouldn’t have said this a week ago," he said, "but I will say it now, and here with you, that I really do believe that given how the clock is ticking, based on what the administration is saying ... I think we’re at the point now of saying the House of Representatives should be called back into session because it is clear the president is moving in this direction.”

“That’s my view as one member of the House of Representatives,” said Rigell. “But we are at that point.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/bipartisan-house-coalition-demands-congressional-approval-on-syria-strike/

Bipartisan House coalition demands Congressional approval on Syria strike

POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON AUGUST 28, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Rising discontent among members of Congress over being bypassed on Syria has a distinctly bipartisan cast, ABC News reports. A group of eighty-one members of the House will send a letter to President Barack Obama this afternoon demanding that the commander-in-chief seek authorization from Capitol Hill before launching a military attack on a nation that presents no imminent threat to the security of the US. The group contains a dozen Democrats, and that number may rise:

A growing bipartisan coalition in Congress is coming together to “strongly urge” President Obama “to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

In a letter that will be sent to the president later today, Rep. Scott Rigell, a second-term Republican from Virginia, joins at least 81 of his Republican and Democratic colleagues in demanding that the president first acquire consent from Congress, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, before responding militarily to the Syrian government’s purported use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets,” the group, which so far includes 69 Republicans and 13 Democrats, writes. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Rigell has imposed a 3:00 p.m. deadline for lawmakers to sign on before the letter will be sent to the White House.

Why not go to Congress? There is at least as large a bipartisan group urging action, probably more than enough in both chambers to get easy passage of a limited pass. The authorization would give Obama more political cover on what is undeniably an unpopular action, and spread the blame to both parties. Chuck Todd suggested yesterday that the White House is afraid that “isolationists” will block the authorization, and that the delay in getting approval would be too great:

Delay? Well, it’s been months since the first time Syria used chemical weapons, which makes a rush to action here moot. Furthermore, the UN wants more time to determine what exactly happened anyway.

Todd also reports that the White House thinks they have ample room under the War Powers Act to use military force without Congressional authorization. As Andrew Kaczynski andJohn Ekdahl pointed out yesterday, though, that’s not just a dollop of hypocrisy but a massive serving of it:

Then-Senator Obama likewise agreed with the assessment from Biden saying the President of the United States could only authorize an attack in the instance of “imminent threat” to the nation, responding to a question to a 2008 Boston Globe questionnaire on executive authority.

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Joe Biden had previously threatened impeachment against George W. Bush for a number of reasons, including the use of the War Powers Act to attack Iran over its nuclear-weapons program, which actually does represent a threat to the US. He even put the argument on his campaign website:

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

How much more does this apply to Syria, which represents no direct or imminent threat to the United States? If Biden was “dead serious” then, this just shows how unserious this administration is now.

Despite the concerns voiced not just by the American people ( who are astounding against fighting another War , in another foreign land - against people who have not threatened to harm the US ) but also voiced by Congress - as noted above , President Obama has spoken....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/obama-concludes-assad-carried-out-chemical-attack

Obama "Concludes" That Assad Carried Out Chemical Attack

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2013 18:15 -0400

One week after the fact, without the UN inspectors having completed their job, and without any actual evidence presented to the general public...

BREAKING: Obama: US has 'concluded' that Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attack.

6:07 PM - 28 Aug 2013

and more.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/obama-weve-concluded-that-syrian-army-conducted-chemical-weapon-attack/

Obama: We’ve “concluded” that Syrian army conducted chemical-weapon attack

POSTED AT 6:31 PM ON AUGUST 28, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

While the UK calls for a slowdown in the push to punish Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Barack Obama says that “we have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these [attacks] out.” The President told Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff that this conclusion requires consequences, and that a failure to punish this violation of “international norms” puts the security of the United States at risk:

It might not come as quickly as Obama wants, however. The Atlantic reports that the UK, America’s closest ally, wants to slow things down until David Cameron can give the UN a chance to say no:

The Obama administration’s plans to carry out a limited air strike against Syria may be delayed until Tuesday thanks to political opposition in the U.K. Parliament. How would British opposition to an American military action throw off the whole schedule? The U.S. and the U.K., according to aGuardian report, seem to be jointly pursuing support for a military strike. And while it looks like the president believes he has all the support he needs to move those plans forward, things have become more complicated in the U.K. Because of that, the U.S. is apparently giving Cameron a “lifeline” so he can quell an anticipated “revolt” in Parliament, as opposition to military action in Syria grows there.

That should give Obama a chance to ask Congress for approval, but don’t expect him to make the pitch. So far, Obama can’t even be bothered to provide proper consultation to the intel committees on Capitol Hill:

U.S. congressional intelligence committee leaders believe the Obama administration has not properly consulted them as the president engages in final deliberations for possible military action in Syria, according to congressional officials.

One of the officials said the administration’s discussions with critical lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers, had been limited to “very brief status updates.”

Another official said such talks had largely taken place over unclassified non-secure phone lines, making it difficult to discuss sensitive intelligence findings or details of the administration’s plans for a possible U.S. military response.

Golly, remember when liberals were so concerned about a rush to war and the conservative-imposed “imperial presidency”? Ed Schultz seems to have time-traveled back to that long-ago era:

How does MLK's message of peace apply today as conservatives push for war in Syria? http://on.thegrio.com/1913OnU  tweet #edshow so we can share!

Someone need to wake up Ed Van Winkel and remind him who’s been President for the last four-plus years.

http://rt.com/news/syria-military-action-delay-129/

Obama ‘not yet made a decision’ on Syria as UK political rows stall intervention

Published time: August 28, 2013 21:12
Edited time: August 28, 2013 23:18

Get short URL

AFP Photo / Justin Tallis

Share on tumblrFacing strong opposition in the UK parliament, military action against the Syrian regime over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed. Meanwhile, US president Barack Obama said he has not yet made a final decision about the military attack.

On Thursday, the House of Commons will be asked by the government to approve a "strong humanitarian response" to the Syrian government’s alleged war crimes.

However, British opposition leader Ed Miliband said he would call on his MPs to vote against the government motion if the amendment calling for the delay of any military action is defeated, the Guardian reports.

"We will continue to scrutinise this motion but at 5.15pm David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote, an hour and a half later he changed his mind,” a Labour source told the Guardian. “Ed was determined to do the right thing. It has taken Labour forcing a vote to force the government to do the right thing."

The delay of parliamentary approval could push back the military response timetable until next Tuesday when MPs are expected to have another vote.

Among other conditions the Labour Party said it would support military action only if members of the UN Security Council saw the chemical weapons inspectors report first.

A motion in the UK parliament has been called to let the UN Security Council see findings from chemical weapons inspectors before backing any military action in Syria.

“The United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken,” the motion says.

Obama: 'No final decision yet'

Meanwhile, US President Obama said he has not made a decision on whether to order a strike in Syria, although the US has concluded that the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks near Damascus last week.

"We have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place,” Obama said in an interview with PBS Wednesday evening.

Obama said direct military engagement with Syrian forces during their civil conflict would not ease tensions on the ground.

"If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term," he said.

Obama disavowed an open-ended conflict with Syria while reiterating that those who use chemical weapons must be held responsible.

"We do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable."

He said Syria has "one of the largest stockpiles in the world of chemical weapons.”

Barack Obama (Alex Wong / Getty Images / AFP)

US Speaker of the House John Boehner has written a letter to President Obama asking for clarification on a host of questions ahead of any attack on Syria.

"Now, having again determined your red line has been crossed, should a decisive response involve the use of the United States military, it is essential that you provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action – which is a means, not a policy – will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy."

Russia urges patience on ‘all necessary measures’ UN resolution on Syria

Earlier on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged his UK counterpart William Hague to wait for the results of the UN chemical weapons inspection in Syria, before submitting a Security Council resolution that would permit the use of force against Bashar Assad.

Hague phoned Lavrov on Wednesday night, hours after presenting a resolution to use “all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons.”

Chapter 7 allows the use of military force.

The UK, the United States and the Arab League believe that on August 21, Syria’s government forces launched a chemical attack against civilians in a suburb of Damascus. Medical aid agency Doctors without Borders says at least 355 people died after a toxic gas release.

A United Nations chemical weapons inspection is currently underway in the Syrian capital, and is expected to produce a report on the alleged attack by Sunday at the latest.

The five members of the UN Permanent Security Council – which will have the final say in whether any resolution is implemented – met in New York on Wednesday, to unofficially discuss the text of the draft resolution.

None of the officials present revealed the result of the talks, though earlier this week Lavrov warned against military intervention “in line with the Libya and Iraq scenario.” He has also claimed to be unconvinced by US assertions that government forces were behind the attack.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also urged the sides to let the inspectors, who he said had “collected valuable samples,” finish their job, before submitting any proposal for intervention.

“Give diplomacy a chance,” he pleaded in a televised statement.

Meanwhile, Washington sources claim the White House is preparing to present a portfolio of evidence indicting the government for the chemical attack in the coming days. Among the materials that are expected to be made public are intercepted phone conversations, photos and eyewitness accounts from August 21.

And the work is not nearly done - why rush to bomb , bomb , bomb - be correct , go through the legal

steps rather than rushing to appease the Tony Blairs and Neo- cons of the world ?

http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/

Syria asks UN to immediately investigate three new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels

Published time: August 28, 2013 16:18
Edited time: August 28, 2013 19:46

Get short URL

Reuters/Abo Alnour Alhaji

Share on tumblr

Trends

Syria unrest

Wednesday, August 28

22:07 GMT: US congressional representatives serving on intelligence committees feel President Obama has not properly consulted them regarding military action in Syria, sources in Congress told Reuters. One source said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers have been given “very brief status updates.” Others have come forward to report that key conversations have taken place over non-secure phone lines, making it impossible to discuss confidential, yet crucial, information.

21:30 GMT: US Speaker of the House John Boehner has written a letter to President Obama asking for clarification on a host of questions ahead of any attack on Syria.

20:35 GMT: Several hundred people have staged a protest against a potential military intervention in Syria in front of Downing Street in London on Wednesday. Called by the Stop the War Coalition, the demonstrators demanded that the UK government call a halt to preparations for a proposed attack on Syria.

19:58 GMT: UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor Angela Merkel have agreed that Syria “cannot go unpunished,” the German government said in a statement.

“The Syrian regime must not hope to be able to continue this warfare that violates international law ... Therefore an international reaction is inevitable in the view of the chancellor and the prime minister,” the statement said.

19:52 GMT: United Nations personnel may be evacuated from Syria before the week is out in view of the possible military operations by Western states, a source in the UN Secretariat told Itar-Tass. According to the source, “almost no” UN representatives will remain in Syria by the end of this week. However, these measures do not concern the UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, he added.

19:36 GMT: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had a phone conversation over the situation in Syria, Putin’s spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the call was initiated by Rouhani.

“Both sides consider the use of chemical weapons by anyone intolerable,” the statement stressed.

The presidents agreed that in the view of the calls for foreign military intervention in Syria a solution to the crisis must be sought “through exclusively political and diplomatic means.”

19:23 GMT: A motion in the UK parliament has been called to let the UN Security Council see findings from chemical weapons inspectors before backing any military action in Syria.

“The United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken,” a copy of the motion to be debated in the UK parliament on Thursday was quoted by Reuters.

19:01 GMT: Russia has a right to veto in accordance with the UN Charter, but it is premature to comment on voting on the UK’s draft resolution on Syria, said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov. He explained that the resolution is currently being distributed by the “sponsors” of the document among several UN member states, calling it a “common working process.”

Such distribution is unofficial, thus it does not trigger a formal 24-hour countdown for a vote after the introduction of a resolution to the UN Security Council, Gatilov said.

18:45 GMT: US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the US will not let Syria “hide behind”the Russian veto in the UN Security Council against military intervention.

“We do not believe the Syrian regime should be able to hide behind the fact that the Russians continue to block action on Syria at the UN and we will make our decision on appropriate action going forward,” Harf told reporters.

She then questioned, whether UN Council was an effective venue to deal with the Syrian conflict, citing previous decisions by Russia to block resolutions on Syria.

18:00 GMT: UK Foreign Minister William Hague has called the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to “exchange views on the situation in Syria,” a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman told Itar-Tass.

Hague informed Lavrov of the draft UK resolution on the alleged chemical weapon use in Syria, the spokesman said.

Lavrov then told his UK counterpart that the UN Security Council should not consider a resolution on Syria before the UN inspector team reports on the chemical weapons use.

17:46 GMT: Russian UN representatives did not stage a walk-out at the meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Itar-Tass reports citing Russia’s permanent mission to the UN. The statement came in response to earlier reports claiming that Russian and Chinese diplomats “left” what was said to be a closed-door discussion of the UK-drafted resolution on the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria.

“The Russian representative went out when the meeting ended. That was not a demarche. It is just that some of the delegations did not leave for a long time,” the diplomatic source was quoted as saying.

17:37 GMT: Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jaafari said he had requested UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the UN team investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons to also investigate“three more locations where the Syrian soldiers inhaled the nerve gas” last week on the outskirts of Damascus.

Jaafari also accused the US, the UK and France of undermining the UN investigation, as well as of arming the insurgents, who are attempting to topple the Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“They are behind arming and supplying the armed terrorists groups with all kind of logistical support, as well as with weapons,” Jaafari said, adding that the current “threat of using force… has only one goal – undermining the mission of the investigation team.”

The Syrian government “is against the use of chemical weapons by all means,” the envoy stressed, calling the attacks “a moral obscenity” and saying that Syria wants “those who committed this crime to be held accountable.”

16:44 GMT: Syria has warned the Western powers against a military intervention in Syria, with Prime Minister Wael Nade Al-Halqi saying it will “surprise” the offending countries.

Syria will “surprise the aggressors as it surprised them in the war of 1973 when Arab forces caught Israel off guard and became the graveyard of the invaders,” Al-Halqi said.

He added that the Western countries’ “colonialist threats” will not “terrorize” the Syrian government.

16:20 GMT: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) – Russia, China, France, the US and the UK – have discussed the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria behind closed doors. The Western powers are expected to present the UK-drafted resolution on the attack to the UNSC later on Wednesday, according to Itar-Tass.

15:47 GMT: China’s Foreign Ministry has advised Chinese citizens to refrain from traveling to Syria, citing escalating tensions in the country. A statement published on the ministry’s website also advised Chinese citizens remaining in Syria to exercise caution, stay in contact with the Chinese embassy and to leave the country “as soon as possible.”

15:29 GMT: Turkey has put its armed forces on alert ahead of a possible Western missile strike against Syria, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.

“We are now at a more alert position... Turkey will take whatever measures necessary within the framework of its own strategic interests,” Davutoglu said, adding that “all options” remained open on the possible international action.

15:18 GMT: No concrete decision on possible military action against Syria was taken at the NATO Council meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, Itar-Tass reports.

After the meeting, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO condemned the alleged August 21 chemical attack in Syria, and said that “information available from a wide variety of sources points to the Syrian regime as responsible for the use of chemical weapons in these attacks.”

“This is a clear breach of longstanding international norms and practice. Any use of such weapons is unacceptable and cannot go unanswered. Those responsible must be held accountable,” Rasmussen said.

14:29 GMT: A report by Bloomberg citing an unnamed UN official has claimed that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s brother Maher is suspected of authorizing the use of chemical weapons in the August 21 incident. Assad’s younger brother, who commands the Syrian Republican Guard and the Army’s 4th Armored Division and is portrayed in the report as a “shadowy figure,” may have allegedly ordered the attack without the president’s consent. Should Maher Assad be found a culprit of this “brash action,” a Republican Guard stronghold may become the target of the Western missile strike instead of the presidential palace, the official reportedly said.

14:20 GMT: A spokesman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov met in The Hague to discuss the UN probe of the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria, as well as the preparations to the Geneva-2 peace conference.

13:58 GMT: Israel’s armed forces are deploying all of their missile defenses as a precaution against possible Syrian retaliatory attacks in case Western powers carry out a strike on Syria, Israeli Army Radio reported Wednesday.

“In light of the recent occurrences in the region, the IDF is taking the necessary defense measures to safeguard the state of Israel,” Reuters reported a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as saying.

Neither did elaborate on which military deployments are taking place.

13:54 GMT: Iraq has put its security forces on high alert ahead of an expected strike on Syria, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

“All political and security powers in Baghdad, the provinces and all over Iraq, are being put on the highest level of alert,” Reuters reported al-Maliki as saying in a televised statement Wednesday.

13:45 GMT: Damascus has handed over proof to UN inspectors that Assad’s regime did not deploy chemical weapons, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Al-Mikdad told reporters Wednesday.

“Syrian government forces have never used chemical weapons – such claims are just a pretext. We have proof of this, which we passed to the inspectors of the UN commission,” Al-Mikdad said.

12:08 GMT: Missile strikes against Syria could lead to chemical weapons getting into the wrong hands, said Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s ambassador to the UK.

11:49 GMT: Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it was too soon to discuss measures against Syria by the UN Security Council before the UN investigators report on the alleged chemical weapons attack.

11:17 GMT: Saudi Arabia’s armed forces have been placed on high alert amid widespread expectations that Western governments are planning to carry out a military strike against Syria in the coming days.

11:14 GMT: The French parliament is to hold an extraordinary session later Wednesday to discuss the situation in Syria, Reuters cited government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem as saying. "The president has taken the decision to summon parliament on Wednesday to assess the situation in Syria," she said after a Cabinet meeting.

10:59 GMT: German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle urged members of the UN Security Council, including Russia, to back the UK resolution on Syria expected to be proposed later Wednesday. The resolution will condemn the chemical weapon attacks allegedly carried out by the Assad government and authorize “necessary measures” to protect civilians.

10:32 GMT: The UN’s Syria envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, said that international law is clear that a Security Council resolution is required for military action.

10:16 GMT: American and British warships deployed in the eastern Mediterranean may carry out a strike on Syria using cruise missiles as soon as in the early hours of Friday, according to Fox News quoting unknown military sources.

9:40 GMT: Israeli intelligence has reportedly intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials concerning the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told German magazine Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official underlined.

9:20 GMT: The UK has drafted a resolution condemning the chemical weapons attack allegedly carried out by Bashar Assad forces and authorizing "necessary measures" to protect civilian population. The document is to be presented later on Wednesday at a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council in New York.

9:16 GMT: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said that the UN inspection team in Syria needs“time to do its job.”

7:37 GMT: An al-Qaeda linked group has threatened a ‘volcano of revenge’ against the Syrian government and military targets in retaliation for the suspected chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb last week, Reuters reports.

"The meeting factions decided to carry out the "Volcano of Revenge" invasion in response to the regime's massacres against our people in Eastern Ghouta, the last of which was the chemical weapons massacre," the SITE Monitoring Group quotes a statement from a branch of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as saying.

"They have decided to strike the main joints of the regime in imprisoned Damascus, including security branches, support and supply points, training centres, and infrastructure," it continued.

The August 26 statement followed a meeting between the ISIL and eight Syrian factions.

05:45 GMT: David Cameron and Barack Obama have discussed the Syrian crisis in a phone conversation. It comes amid the UK and the US considering intervention into the country over the allegations that the Syrian authorities used chemical weapons against the population – something the Bashar Assad government denies.

03:12 GMT: Foreign Policy Magazine reports that US intelligence has intercepted communication that allegedly proves that government forces used nerve agent in the attack in Damascus last Wednesday. The publication claims that after the attack an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense “exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike." The publication speculates that this is the evidence which makes the US and its allies certain that Assad troops were responsible for the attack.

00:34 GMT: A powerful explosion has reportedly rocked central Damascus. There was no immediate information of any casualties.

2 comments:

Kev8/28/2013
Strange that the House is trying to slow Obama down, must just be for show, I'm sure they don't actually want to stop the war. I'm sure they don't care that our "proof" is no proof at all.

Interesting feel to the markets today,or for that matter the weather, the war, the population,etc. feels like something big is coming :) Not necessarily bad just big.
Unknown8/28/2013
Hey Kev - Not only is the House trying to slow down Obama , but the Parliament in the UK has embarrassingly slowed down Cameron ! Is some sanity seeping in - hard to believe it , but just maybe !

Today seemed like a day of waiting - like on Fed Open market day when markets go on pause from about later morning until 2:15 when whatever news / decisions from the Fed come forth. Where some clarity was seen as coming Thursday , now with the UK revolt by the MPs against Cameron , it seems things will be unsettled - maybe through the weekend ! That was not the plan of the US/ UK or France - egg on their faces as they already told their Syrian rebel pals bombing would begin Th / Fri ! Best laid plans , right ?

Can't to wait what Obama and John Kerry indisputable evidence is on Thursday / Friday - or will that be put on hold to ? If the " evidence " is provide Th , that means everyone has until next week to dissect it !

Catharsis Ours

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Dem. Congressman: 'Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria'