A Quote by Chris Gibson

Importantly, rather than being solely concerned with U.N. approval, the president must come first to our own Congress for authorization, and I urge him to do so. Finally, I understand the impulse to take action in Syria; however, I hope the president carefully considers this matter and resists the call from some to use military force in Syria.
I am encouraged President Obama now says he will fulfill his constitutional obligation to seek authorization for any potential military action in Syria. This is the most important decision any President or any Senator must make, and it deserves vigorous debate
I intend to vote against authorizing the president to use military force in Syria. The Obama Administration has not provided a clear or convincing strategy for inserting our military into the conflict. I am also deeply concerned about the extent to which al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists are involved in the rebellion.
As the United States Congress considers military intervention in Syria, per President Obama's request, I think it's important to be very honest about what we are considering.
President Obama is asking Congress to support a military strike in Syria. If they approve, it will be the first time Congress has officially declared war since Obamacare.
The minute Mr. Putin decided to put his military forces in Syria, I went to see him. And I said, "Look, here's what I'm doing. I'm not intervening in Syria. But at the same time, if Syria tries to intervene with us, if Iran tries to use Syria to attack us, we'll stop it.
More than a decade and half after 9/11, U.S. military actions in countries such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and several other Muslim nations are governed by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was passed in the days immediately after 9/11.
Given that the president has not yet demonstrated why military action is in our best interest, given that the administration will not be constrained to keep boots off the ground, and given that there is no clear end-game, I am against the president's resolution to go to war in Syria.
If you're going to be involved in Syria, then you need to make sure that there really is peace in Syria. And that means making sure that President Assad does not use chemical weapons on his own people.
President Barack Obama Invokes Iraq War Authorization in Syria
I have defended Syria for a long time, so I was admiring Syria, I have admired your president very much. I hope at some point to be able to meet him and shake his hand. I think he is the greatest man in a very difficult period, and especially with what's going on right now, in terms of Lebanon and its relations with Syria. But absolutely, even from my perspective, and it shows you how the Zionist media around the world controls and affects all of us. Even those of us who are aware of it - it's subtly affecting.
WASHINGTON - Ever since President Obama ordered American warplanes to begin bombing terrorist targets in Iraq and Syria last year, members of Congress have insisted on having a say in the matter. The president, they declared, could not, or at least should not, take the country back to war without the input of the nation's elected representatives.
Unless there is meaningful change in Syria and an end to the crackdown, President Assad and those around him will find themselves isolated internationally and discredited within Syria.
When Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force immediately after the 9/11 attacks, no one could have imagined this authorization would continue to be the basis for American wars that persist a decade and a half later.
I work with the president and speak with him multiple times a week. This is a man, he didn't become the president by accident. And as much as everyone wants to talk about stability, was he unstable when he passed the tax reform? Was he unstable when we finally hit back at Syria and said no more chemical weapons?
In Syria, a progressive foreign policy would have shown military restraint while pumping up our ability to gain political leverage over Syria's benefactors and providing humanitarian funding to make sure that anybody that wanted to leave Syria could.
The question's whether or not there's an American interest in the Civil War [in Syria]. The question is whether or not a military strike on [Bashar] Assad will cause him to be encouraged to use more weapons or discouraged. It's easy enough to say - and the president [Barack Obama] says though this will teach him a lesson - but his military strike is intended not to target him individually, not to bring about regime change.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!