It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama’s (Syria) Proposal Seeks Broad War Powers Despite Vow of Limits

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 08:26 AM
Some slight of hand tactics being used here by Obama, IMHO
Most significant ... no 'Sunset Measure' in the proposal. (open end .. as in .. unending)
And Obama wants authority to act outside of Syria itself.
And no promise that Americans won't have 'boots on the ground'.

Obama's Proposal Seeks Broad War Power Despite Vow of Limits

The substantive part of Obama’s proposed authorization of the use of military force, conveyed to congressional leaders over the weekend, contains 172 words. That’s significantly more than either the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing the Vietnam War or the 2001 resolution authorizing retaliation for the 9/11 terror attacks, two measures that later became notorious for how aggressively presidents used them.

The proposed resolution gives Obama a go-ahead to use the military as he “determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria.” Specifically, the president could act to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapons or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.”

Tellingly, University of Texas Law School Professor Robert Chesney said in an interview, Obama’s proposed authorization did not include a sunset date. Chesney suggested that “if the administration is serious about wanting to act in such a truly narrow, time-limited way,” then a sunset measure could be useful.

Also rather open ended ...

Obama’s proposed authorization would also allow military action to stop the “transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors” of the designated weapons. This includes actions involving weapons transfers “within, to or from Syria,” which potentially extends authority to act well outside Syria itself.

NPR - Obama DRAFT Resolution for Congress

Sept 2 - Initial response from members of Congress (both (D) and (R) is that Obama wants too much power with this resolution and it'll have to be rewritten.
USA TODAY - Congress Seeks Narrower Authority for Obama in Syria

Members of Congress in both parties said Sunday they would not be able to support the current draft of a resolution authorizing President Obama to launch a military strike against Syria, and top Democrats said it will have to be rewritten to limit the president's authority.

With conservative Republicans raising serious doubts about a military strike against Syria, Obama will need a strong vote of support from House Democrats to get the resolution through the House. But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the resolution submitted Saturday by the White House is "too broadly drafted" and that he cannot vote for "a partial blank check."

Van Hollen said the resolution would need a time limit on military action and some guarantees that American troops would not be sent into Syria before he could support it.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 08:33 AM
And some more information.
Washington Post - After Classified Briefing - Lawmakers are Skeptical on Syria Attack
This article has comments from folks in congress after they attended a classified briefing on the situation in Syria and what Obama wants to do about it. The individual comments are interesting. Pretty much most think that the proposal by Obama is too broad (both (D) and (R) agree) ... that Assad really did use chemical weapons... but they also aren't sure why America should have to get involved. That's what I'm reading anyways ...

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 08:59 AM
It appears Obama wants the proposal defeated, which gives him the option of backing down, if he feels like it, without a loss of face.

But you never know. Unless the brilliant minds in the Congress are explicitly told about it, they might endorse it anyway.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:04 AM
You know, I think Presidents have always done this. Ask for the Moon and Heavens themselves, to start. The difference today is that we actually have toads in Congress that consider such an absurd thing as an all or nothing proposal. It used to be a starting point, on a thing like this.....and we all know this could be approved. Not likely, I'm thinking. It's possible though, and that's enough to highlight the problem, IMO.

How about No to ALL of the above, with no exceptions? You think he'd 'hear us now', with that? If only we had a Congress willing to say it.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by Observor

I'm looking in that direction myself.
Yes, chemical weapons being used was bad, but going to war with a proxy of Iran and China is a significant and dangerously risky expedition.

For the sake of the US and the cold war mentality, now that Russia and china have stood up the US cannot just whimper, they need to make it appear it was a legality issue.

Also, waiting until the 9th of September for congress to return, meaning it probably wont occur until the 10th.. by then hopefully out of mind out of site comes to play and the public arent as concerned anymore.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

All that is strangely coming close to that September 11th date, isn't it? Kinda makes you wonder why Obama wants us to go to war on September 11th ... while holding hands with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

People are thinking wrong on this Syrian war thing, the only reason America see Syria today is because it is a friend of Russia, the USA want a war with Russia, from what I hear today I think America will get it's wish as Russia are well ready, plus the Americans know that they have only weeks left before Russia can bring in a bit of great tec gear to make it so no NATO missiles will be able to get through defences.
So if the USA don't get Russia by March 2014 they never will do, Russia will have a shield all round it, so USA would lose any attack.
America are desperate now relations could not be lower between the two giant nations, we are on dangerous gounds, America know that, they may have just weeks left before they FRY, most people in the would would raise flags too sad to say, the USA behave badly towards others with there terrorist trained groups.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Alternative4u
America know that, they may have just weeks left before they FRY, most people in the would would raise flags too sad to say, the USA behave badly towards others with there terrorist trained groups.

America isn't the bad guy in the world. The ENTIRE WORLD does exactly what America does. But it's the 'in thing to do' to blame America for ALL the problems going on.

America isn't involved in Syria. The players in Syria are Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. They are fighting over oil pipelines and religion.

Also, anyone stupid enough to 'raise a flag' if America goes down, is an idiot. If America goes down ... the entire world goes down. The economics of the planet are too tightly woven for any other outcome. And America isn't the big bad guy ... no matter what the press says. EVERYONE is misbehaving.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 10:14 AM
the obama proposal on action against Syria is like a obstinate salesman putting his foot in between the door and the jamb so the salesman can continue his sales pitch

but in the case of the 0bama attack proposal the foot-in-the-doorway is just the intermediate step before you find out that there is an outright home-invasion operaation unfolding with a team of sub-contractors hiding in the shadows

since the Arab Spring aroud March 2011.... over 100,000 Syrian, men women children have been slain by the AQ, Jabhat al-Nusra, and many other proxy fighters bankrolled by the CIA or Qatar+Saudi Arabia...

now 0bama wants to open another front against Syria who was legally sold the chemical ingredients to make nerve gas/ sarin gas by a British export company...but that criminal act is still developing... the Saudi-Qatar support was where the Aug 21st sarin gas came from and al-Nusra was the cause of the accidental Sarin release from improper the rebel controlled area of Damascus
edit on 2-9-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)


The Syrian American Forum

Protests against the Syrian war have taken place all across the country and the diversity of the protestors is stunning. The organizing element for most of these protests is the Syrian American Forum and they are the perfect place to start a nonviolent revolution against the bankers as they have good organizational capabilities as evidenced in the nationwide protest efforts. I would suggest going to their contact page and offer to help. We need to make T-shirts, bumper stickers and provide publicity for their efforts. I would ask my friends in the alternative media to help in this endeavor as this opportunity, to uniformly oppose the bankers, may never come again.

The Syrian American Forum can be contacted at this site. We can derail the globalists on this issue and this issue could galvanize people to stand up to these globalist thugs on other issues as well.

By Russell Findlay, Billy Briggs

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began
1 Sep 2013 07:21

FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
Men search for survivors amid debris of collapsed buildings Men search for survivors amid debris of collapsed buildings

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

the rabbit hole goes all the way to wonderland
edit on 2-9-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by St Udio

Yep ... the UK sold the ingredients to Syria. They said it was for fertilizer. It's not the UKs fault that the ingredients got used for nefarious purposes. Live and learn. Now they know Syria lies (like everyone else).

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 07:03 AM
More confirmation that Obama has deeper plans for Syria than he's admitting ....

Telegraph UK - US General Says Syria Action Could Be MOre Substantial Than Thought

General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the US Army, told BBC Radio 4 that he had spoken to senior Republican senators who had been briefed by the US president on Monday, and had been assured that Mr Obama planned to do significant damage to the forces of Bashar al-Assad.

The Obama administration has previously said that military strikes would not be aimed at toppling Assad's government nor altering the balance of the conflict. Instead, the White House has suggested, they would be intended to punish Assad for the alleged gas attack in Damascus on Aug 21 and to reinstate Washington's "red line" against the use of chemical weapons.

But Gen. Keane said he understood Mr Obama was planning a more substantial intervention in Syria than had previously been thought, with increased support for the opposition forces, including training from US troops.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:13 AM
I don't usually use this as a source, but it looks like this person has it right ...

Obama's Syria Attack Resolution Authorizes Boots on the Ground

The Obama administration’s draft resolution for military intervention which Congress is set to vote on next week is so broad that it would authorize boots on the ground as well as regime change and open ended war throughout the entire region, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.

Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003.

In an article for the Lawfare Blog, Goldsmith reveals how the White House’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) would give Obama the power to deploy ground troops in Syria, despite the administration’s claims that it is only seeking to carry out “limited” strikes that have no connection to regime change.

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

This doesn't sound like a regular strike or even an invasion of a small country like Syria, this sounds more like the preparations to invade more than one country.

A declaration of war is bigger than just an air strike look at Iraq, that wasn't just taking out Saddam that was a full blow invasion and declaration of war even if the warmongers sold us a lie.

The war profiteers with their dummy in the White house are getting ready for a war a full blown war and is not only Syria involved on this one.

They better know what in the hell they are doing because I don't think China is going to finance this war like it did for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, hell maybe now Quatar and Saudi will start investing more in the US debt.
America military "mercenaries for hire". How pathetic.

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Oh, the boots in the ground has been a done deal since July of last year when Obama first came out with the resolution that Syria may need to be taken care off, because somebody had to secure their MWDs.

I think the whole pony show about Syria in congress is just that, the plans for Syria has been in the table for a long time.

new topics


log in