The Hill's Syria Whip List: Tough work for Obama to win votes for strike

By The Hill Staff - 09/03/13

The White House faces a tough task in convincing a majority in the House and Senate to approve authorization for a military strike against Syria.

The administration is pulling out all the stops to convince lawmakers, but Democrats and Republicans alike are seeking more answers from the White House on the U.S. mission in Syria.

Some on the right and the left have already staked out firm opposition.

The White House has found two key GOP allies: Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could also play a significant role in helping the White House round up votes on the left.

The measure is expected to pass the Senate, but its prospects in the House are dimmer. Most House Republicans who have taken a stance are vowing to vote no, or are leaning no.

The following is the The Hill's whip list on Syria.

Recent updates: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Rep. Steve Sourtherland (R-Fla.), Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

—Last updated on Sept. 3 at 10:29 p.m.


YES/LEANING YES

Senate (17)

Richard Burr (R-N.C.) — Supports resolution, according to the newsobserver.com.

Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — Leaning yes.

Bob Casey (D-Pa.) — Said Saturday that it's in the U.S. interest to respond to most recent chemical attack.

Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — Said Saturday a red line was crossed a long time ago and the U.S. "must respond."

Chris Coons (D-Del.) — Said on MSNBC he's "inclined" to support the president, but made clear that he is not a firm yes.

Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — Remarks suggest he will vote yes.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — Said before Obama's request for congressional authorization that the world could not let such a heinous attack pass without meaningful response.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — Working closely with the White House on Syria.

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) — Said chemical attack requires "a strong response that will prevent this from happening again."

Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) — Said he supports military action.

Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — On Facebook, said he'd support "a narrow authorization for a missile strike targeting those responsible for using chemical weapons."

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — Judiciary Committee chairman voted against the war in Iraq.

John McCain (R-Ariz.) — Said it would be “catastrophic” if Congress were to reject legislation.

Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — Foreign Relations panel chairman is working on the measure.

Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) — Has called on the president to act before Congress votes.

Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — Senate majority leader backs the president.

Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — The third-ranking Democrat in the Senate said he could support a limited strike.


YES/LEANING YES

House (15)

John Boehner (R-Ohio) — Speaker to support military action in big boost for Obama.

Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — Boehner's second in command also backs strike.

Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) — Tweeted Monday that the evidence of a chemical attack is strong. He is working with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on a resolution.

Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) — Said on Twitter that he stands behind Obama's call for a "targeted and limited response."

Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) — The top Dem on the Foreign Affairs Committee backs the president.

Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — Second-ranking House Dem tweeted Friday that he agreed with the White House that the use of chemical weapons by Syria was unacceptable.

Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) — Backs limited strike.

Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) — Has publicly backed the president.

Luke Messer (R-Ind.) — Before attending a classified briefing on Sunday, Messer said on MSNBC, "I could support a strike on Syria."

Jim Moran (D-Va.) — In a release, Moran said, "Now it is up to one of the most divisive, least productive Congresses in history to authorize an intervention and protect the credibility and viability of a U.S. response to Assad's horrific crimes against humanity."

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — House minority leader will be a key player on resolution.

Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) — Intelligence panel chairman predicts resolution will pass Congress.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) — Democratic National Committee chairwoman said on CNN that the "world cannot let such a heinous attack pass without a meaningful response."

Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) — Has floated a new resolution that is much narrower than Obama's.

Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) — Supports the president.


NO/LEANING NO

Senate (6)

John Boozman (R-Ark.) — Leaning no.

James Inhofe (R-Okla.) — Ranking member of the Armed Services Committee disagrees with McCain, says he cannot support action because of budget cuts.

Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) — Said U.S. "cannot afford another conflict that taxes our resources without achieving goals that advance American interests." Moran heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — 2016 possible White House candidate has been a critic of military intervention in Syria.

Jim Risch (R-Idaho) — "I'm extremely reluctant."

Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) — Former Intelligence panel chairman issues scathing rebuke of Obama, says the president has no exit plan.


NO/LEANING NO

House (44)

Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) — Told 48 News he needs to be convinced there is a direct threat to the U.S., adding he doesn't believe that now.

Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — Firm no.

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — Tweeted that she's "adamantly opposed" to military action.

Michael Burgess (R-Texas) — Burgess says U.S. action in Syria would be very risky.

Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — Chaffetz is opposed, according to ksl.com.

Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) — On Sept. 1, he told 41 Action News he would vote no if the vote took place that day.

Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — House deputy whip is leaning no.

Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) — Tweeted Saturday it was impreative that Obama explore alternatives.

Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) — Said on MSNBC he is leaning no.

Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) — Iraq war veteran is against military action in Syria.

John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) — Firm no. He says, "I simply do not want to see any young Americans killed in Syria." Duncan was one of the few Republicans who voted against the Iraq war.

Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) — "I cannot support military action against Syria at this time."

Sam Farr (D-Calif.) — Recent remarks suggest he is leaning no.

John Fleming (R-La.) — "As the situation now stands, I will vote against U.S. military action on Syria."

Randy Forbes (R-Va.) — Said on Fox News on Sunday that taking military action is not in nation's best interests.

Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) — Opposed.

Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) — Says the president has not yet convinced the public.

Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) — Iraq war veteran said on Facebook he urges a no vote.

Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) — Grayson is rallying support against the measure.

Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) — Leaning no.

Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) — A solid no: "It is not the time for Americans to be subjected to the potential of yet another unwinnable overseas war."

Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook that he agrees with constituents and sees no evidence of U.S. interests in Syrian war.

Sam Johnson (R-Texas) — Decorated combat veteran has a slew of questions on the mission and appears to be leaning no.

Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — Critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a firm no.

Peter King (R-N.Y.) — Said on Fox News Sunday he is leaning no; he didn't believe Congress needed to vote on Syria.

Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) — Senate candidate told WSAV-TV he is leaning no.

Tom Marino (R-Pa.) — Is "absolutely opposed to any intervention in Syria at this time."

Jim Matheson (D-Utah) — Matheson is opposed, according to ksl.com.

Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) — Wants answers to many questions.

Candice Miller (R-Mich.) — Says the "case has not been made" for action.

Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) — Is strongly opposed to a military strike.

Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) — Sent letter to Obama on Friday opposing military intervention.

Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — Reiterated his view that the military draft must be reinstated before an attack on Syria.

Scott Rigell (R-Va.) — Leaning no.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) — Said U.S. shouldn't try to police Syria.

Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) — After attending Sunday's briefing, said in a statement he doesn't support military force at this time.

Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) — Told WSAV-TV he is in the "no" column.

José Serrano (D-N.Y.) — Citing Iraq and other reasons, Serrano says that "we must not get our country involved in another war."

Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) — "After attending classified and unclassified briefings on Syria and speaking with people across New Hampshire, at this point, I oppose the United States taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria," she said.

John Shimkus (R-Ill.) — Said "I am not convinced that a limited strike against Syria at this time is warranted."

Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) — Southerland says an overwhelming number of his constituents are opposed.

Michael Turner (R-Ohio) — He says he's a no until sequestration is lifted.

Frank Wolf (R-Va.) — Leaning no. In a letter to the president, Wolf states he has deep reservations about military intervention

Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook an attack is "not warranted at this time."


UNDECIDED/NOT CLEAR

Senate (13)

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

John Cornyn (R-Texas) — The No. 2-ranking Senate Republican has called on President Obama to address the nation on Syria.

Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) — Has called evidence "circumstantial."

Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — Undecided.

Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — Says there are "so many unanswered questions" during Sept. 3 CNBC interview. But also says if U.S. doesn't lead, the world becomes a more dangerous place.

Angus King (I-Maine)

Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — Armed Services Committee chairman said President Obama made "strong case," but hasn't endorsed plan for military action.

Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — Actively seeking advice from West Virginia residents.

Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — Wants more information on what needs to be done and what can be accomplished in Syria.

Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)


UNDECIDED/NOT CLEAR

House (31)

Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) — Told ABC5 News: "I'm waiting for the president to make the case on the possible use of force and the aftermath."

David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — Said on MSNBC he is "skeptical."

Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) — No.3-ranking House Democrat: "Issues of war and peace rquire thoughtful consideration. I reserve judgment on Syria until a resolution and more details are forthcoming."

Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) — Has not made up his mind but told WKRN-TV he is "extremely leery."

Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)

Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)

Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.)

Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) — Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus is undecided.

Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) — Believes that the international community must some take type of action against Syria. Her statement indicates she's more likely a yes than a no.

Bill Johnson (R-Ohio)

Dale Kildee (D-Mich.)

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — A spokesman for the House majority whip said McCarthy is weighing “the information and intelligence presented to him by the president and his national security team.”

Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) — Armed Services panel chairman is undecided.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) — Fourth-ranked GOP leader says she is skeptical.

Richard Neal (D-Mass.) — Noted in his statement that he voted against the Iraq War.

Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) — Wants details on what the mission will be.

Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)

Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)

Trey Radel (R-Fla.)

Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)

Martha Roby (R-Ala.)

Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — "The president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria. He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security."

Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)

Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

Bobby Scott (D-Va.) — Expressed concern about precedent the U.S. would be setting by approving an attack.

Chris Stewart (R-Utah)

Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)

David Valadao (R-Calif.)

Randy Weber (R-Texas)

Brad Wenstrup (R-Okla.)

Here is Sen. Rand Paul\'s amendment to the senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution.

He actually quotes Barack Obama when, as a Senator in 2007, he told the Boston Globe that “the President does not have the 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.”

In his two-page amendment, Paul provides the constitutional backing for the President's words, and further declares that “it is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria."

Onward and upward,
airforce

Here is Rand Paul's article in Time, "Why I\'m voting NO on Syria." Here's the takeaway:

Read the whole thing.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Russia Says Its Sending Warships To Med For Evacuations From Syria


Flagship of the Baltic Fleet on its way toward Syria

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Sept 5, 2013

Following several reports of Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean Sea over the past week, The Kremlin’s chief of staff has officially told reporters that the intention is to prepare to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria.

AP reports that Russian news agencies on Thursday quoted senior official Sergei Ivanov as saying that Russia is upping a naval presence in the region to “primarily” be prepared to rescue Russians should a US military bombardment take place.

Yesterday it was reported that Russia is sending three more ships to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its fleet. The additional deployments include two destroyers, one of which is the flagship of the Baltic Fleet, as well as another missile cruiser.

The information came via a Interfax report that cited an unidentified Russian Navy official, who also admitted that the ships would improve Russian surveillance capability over U.S. ships and submarines deployed in the area.

Last week Russia, Syria’s staunch ally, was reported to have deployed an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the area, in order to back up the Russian military facility in Syria at the port of Tartus.

As we reported, the Russian Navy denied that the dispatch of the warships was linked to western military action against Syria, despite Interfax quoting a source in the armed forces’ general staff who said the deployment was in response to the “well-known situation”.

A Russian Naval spokesperson told RIA Novosti that the maneuvers were part of planned rotation and not linked to the worsening situation in Syria.

Now, however, the Russians have admitted that the deployments are linked to Syria, albeit with a humanitarian mission, rather than a battle mission.

The revelations, along with reports of China also sending warships to the Syrian coast, are sure to stoke fears of a larger international conflict, should the US strike Syria.

Both Russia and China have warned that a military attack on Syria would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region and are vehemently opposed to US military action.

The nations are clearly responding to that fact that five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship are currently positioned in the eastern Mediterranean awaiting strike orders. The USS Nimitz and three other warships are also stationed in the nearby Red Sea.

According to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the US think tank the Heritage Foundation, a western attack on Syria would prompt Russia to “deploy a permanent naval squadron in the Mediterranean and accelerate the search for naval bases and anchorages, such as Tartus and Latakiyeh in Syria.”

The Mediterranean is getting a little crowded, ain't it?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Last week there was a report that Syrian rebels admitted they were responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus. Now, there\'s a video purportedly showing a rebel not only admitting it, but bragging about it.

No way to verify it, of course, but it's funny the mainstream press hasn't picked up on the story at all.

Onward and upward,
airforce

President Obama will address the nation from the White House on Tuesday , trying to drum up support for war in Syria. He still will not rule out military action if he loses in Congress.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Obama to Congress: Don\'t pay attention to those pesky voters. Listen to me! Congress should approve military action in Syria whether the public approves or not.

Onward and upward,
airforce

China sending warships to Syria coast. And the Global Times, a Chinese government "news agency," published an angry editorial condemning U.S. involvement in the civil war.

This must be some more of that "smart diplomacy" we used to hear so much about.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Remember when Obama said he'd "side with the Muslims"?
He has a chance to further Islam, eliminate some non-Muslim allies, and finish taking the US into an economic collapse, ready for the taking.

President Obama's security adviser, Susan Rice, says a strike on Syria is necessary, and will change nothing . Seriously. You can't make this stuff up.

And that, folks, is what passes for strategic thinking in the Obama administration.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Here is a video montage of the Obama Administration\'s statements on Syria. Are these guys inept, or what?

And here is senator Rand Paul's response to the President\'s speech .

Onward and upward,
airforce

The CIA has begun arming Syrian rebels. I suppose if you use others to do your killing for you, it really doesn't count.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis
Analysis

September 12, 2013
Analysis

Editor's note: Periodically, Stratfor publishes guidance produced for its analysis team and shares it with readers. This guidance sets the parameters used in our own ongoing examination and assessment of events surrounding Syria's use of chemical weapons as the crisis evolves into a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Given the importance we ascribe to this fast-evolving standoff, we believe it important that readers have access to this additional insight.

In the wake of President Barack Obama's change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.

The president's minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow.

Remember that all public statements now are meant to obscure real plans and intentions. They are intended to shape the environment. Read them, but do not look at them as anything more than tactics.

The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia's goal is to be seen as an equal of the United States. It wins if it can be seen as a protagonist of the United States. If it can appear that Washington has refrained from an attack because of Russian maneuvers, Moscow's weight increases dramatically. This is particularly the case along Russia's periphery, where doubts of American power abound and concern over Russian power abides.

This is not merely appearance. After all that has been said, if the United States buys into some Russian framework, it will not be seen as a triumph of diplomacy; it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act and being pushed away out of concern for the Russians.

The Russian ploy on weapons controls was followed by the brilliant move of abandoning strike options. Obama's speech the night of Sept. 10 was addressed to the U.S. public and Obama's highly fractured base; some of his support base opposes and some -- a particular audience -- demands action.

He cannot let Syria become the focus of his presidency, and he must be careful that the Russians do not lay a trap for him. He is not sure what that trap might look like, and that's what is unnerving him as it would any president. Consequently, he has bought time, using the current American distaste for military action in the Middle East. But he is aware that this week's dislike of war can turn into next week's contempt on charges of weakness. Obama is an outstanding politician and he knows he is in quicksand.

The Russians have now launched a diplomatic offensive that emphasizes to both the Arabs in the Persian Gulf opposing Bashar al Assad and the Iranians supporting him that a solution is available through them. It requires only that they ask the Americans to abandon plans for action. The message is that Russia will solve the chemical weapons problem, and implicitly, collaborate with them to negotiate a settlement.

Obama's speech on Sept. 10, constrained by domestic opinion, came across as unwilling to confront the Russians or al Assad. The Russians are hoping this has unnerved al Assad's opponents sufficiently to cause them to use the Russians as their interlocutors. If this fails the Russians have lost nothing. They can say they were statesmen. If it succeeds, they can actually nudge the regional balance of power.

The weakness of the Russian position is that it has no real weight. The limit on American military action is purely domestic politics. If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak, the tables thus turned on them.

At this point, all signs indicate that the domestic considerations dominate U.S. decision-making. If the Russian initiative begins to work, however, Obama will be forced to consider the consequences and will likely act. The Arabs suspect this and therefore will encourage the Russians, hoping to force the U.S. into action.

The idea that this imbroglio will somehow disappear is certainly one that Obama is considering. But the Russians will not want that to happen. They do not want to let Obama off the hook and their view is that he will not act. Against this backdrop, they can appear to be the nemesis of the United States, its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy.

This is the game to watch. It is not ending but still very much evolving.

War Is Coming: 10 Reasons Why A Diplomatic Solution To The Syria Crisis Is Extremely Unlikely


Michael Snyder
The American Dream
September 13, 2013

Over the past few days, there has been a tremendous wave of optimism that it may be possible for war with Syria to be averted. Unfortunately, it appears that a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria is extremely unlikely. Assad is certainly willing to give up his chemical weapons, but he wants the U.S. to accept a bunch of concessions that it will never agree to. And it certainly sounds like the Obama administration has already decided that “diplomacy” is going to fail, and they continue to position military assets for the upcoming conflict with Syria. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are all going to continue to heavily pressure the Obama administration. They have invested a huge amount of time and resources into the conflict in Syria, and they desperately want the U.S. military to intervene. Fortunately, overwhelming domestic and global opposition to an attack on Syria has slowed down the march toward war for the moment, but unfortunately that probably will not be enough to stop it completely. The following are ten reasons why war is almost certainly coming…

#1 Assad wants a guarantee that he will not be attacked by the United States or by anyone else before he will give up his chemical weapons.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

#2 Assad is not going to agree to any chemical weapons deal unless the U.S. stops giving weapons to al-Qaeda terrorists and other jihadist rebels that are fighting against the Syrian government.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the U.S. has been ramping up the delivery of weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria…

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

#3 Assad is suggesting that the Israelis should give up their weapons of mass destruction.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

#4 The Syrian “rebels” desperately want the U.S. military to intervene in the war in Syria. In fact, that was the entire reason for the false flag chemical weapon attack in the first place.

The “top rebel commander” is now declaring that the Free Syrian Army “categorically rejects the Russian initiative”, and he is calling on the United States to strike the Assad regime immediately.

#5 Saudi Arabia desperately wants the U.S. military to intervene in Syria. The Saudis have spent billions of dollars to support the rebels in Syria, and they have been lobbying very hard for an attack.

#6 Qatar desperately wants the U.S. military to intervene in Syria. Qatar has also spent billions of dollars to support the rebels in Syria, and it has been reported that “Arab countries” have even offered to pay for all of the costs of a U.S. military operation that would remove Assad.

#7 Turkey has wanted a war which would remove Assad for a very long time. And CNN is reporting that Turkey has moved troops to the border with Syria in anticipation of an upcoming attack.

#8 Many members of the U.S. Congress want this war. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are virtually foaming at the mouth, and Robert Menendez, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he “almost wanted to vomit” after reading Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plea for peace in the New York Times.

#9 Obama does not want to look weak, and he seems absolutely obsessed with starting a war with Syria. For the moment, he has been backed into a corner diplomatically by Russia, but the Obama administration is already laying the groundwork for making it look like “diplomacy has failed”. According to CNN, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is already talking about the “consequences” that will happen when the Syria deal falls apart…

Any agreement reached must be “comprehensive,” “verifiable,” “credible” and “able to be implemented in a timely fashion,” Kerry said, adding that “there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place.”

#10 There have been reports that U.S. soldiers are now receiving orders to deploy to Syria. For example, the following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson…

Venture capitalist Dan Bubalo claims he was told by a source close to Ft. Hood that US troops have been ordered to deploy to Syria.

Writing for conservative columnist Mychal Massie’s website, Bubalo cites a “close and verifiable source” who told him that a friend at Ft. Hood had received news that he was to be sent to Egypt for the next nine months.

“This particular soldier said that while he was not really thrilled about the assignment to Egypt, it was better than the soldiers that remained at the military base BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST RECEIVED THEIR DEPLOYMENT ORDERS TO GO TO SYRIA,” writes Bubalo.

If you want to read the original report, you can find it right here.

For the moment, Obama and Kerry will dance around and make it look like they are considering peace. They will try to get Congress to authorize a strike “if diplomacy fails”.

But they already know that diplomacy is going to fail. Once they are ready, Obama will declare that the conditions for war set forth in the congressional authorization have been fulfilled and then he will start raining cruise missiles down on Syria.

When that happens, will Obama have your support? The video posted below is one of the funniest that I have seen in a long time…

And when Obama does strike Syria, he will officially be allying the United States with al-Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups.

Middle Eastern expert Jonathan Spyer has spent a lot of time on the ground among the Syrian rebels recently. The following is what he has to say about who they are…

“Undoubtedly outside of Syria, and in the Syrian opposition structures, there are civilian political activists and leaders who are opposed to al-Qaida and opposed to Islamism,” Spyer explained to TheDC in an email interview. “There are also civilian activists and structures within the country which are opposed to al-Qaida and Islamism. But when one looks at the armed rebel groups, one finds an obvious vast majority there who are adherents of Islamism of one kind or another — stretching from Muslim Brotherhood-type formations all the way across to groups openly aligned with al-Qaida central and with al-Zawahiri.”

“The ‘moderate’ force which we are told about supposedly consists of those rebel brigades aligned with the Supreme Military Command, of Major-General Salim Edriss,” he continued. ”Most of the units aligned with the SMC actually come from a 20-unit strong bloc called the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. This includes some powerful brigades, such as Liwa al-Islam in the Damascus area, Liwa al Farouq and Liwa al Tawhid. These and the overwhelming majority of the units aligned with the SMC are Islamist formations, who adhere to a Muslim Brotherhood-type outlook.”

And as NBC News recently pointed out, a high percentage of these “rebels” have come in from outside Syria…

Abu Abdul Rahman, a 22-year-old from Tunisia, sat in a safe house earlier this week in Antakya — a southern Turkey town that’s fast becoming a smugglers transit route. He was waiting for a smuggler to take him across the border to fight in Syria.

“Almighty Allah has made Jihad a duty on us. When our Muslim brethren are oppressed, it is a duty to support them wherever they are, because Muslims are not separated by countries,” he said.

Abdul Rahman is one of thousands of al-Qaeda volunteers who are flocking to Syria to join what they see as a battle to defend Muslims no one is bothering to help.

“This was a dream for me, to wage jihad for Allah’s sake, because this is one of the greatest deeds in Islam, to lift aggression off my brothers, to bleed for Allah and no other,” he said.

Is this really who Obama intends for us to become “allies” with?

Is he insane?

In article after article, I have documented how Obama’s Syrian rebels have been ruthlessly murdering Christians, using chemical weapons and dismembering little girls.

Today, I found an account from a Time Magazine reporter that chillingly describes the brutality of these fanatics…

I don’t know how old the victim was but he was young. He was forced to his knees. The rebels around him read out his crimes from a sheet of paper. They stood around him. The young man was on his knees on the ground, his hands tied. He seemed frozen.

Two rebels whispered something into his ear and the young man replied in an innocent and sad manner, but I couldn’t understand what he said because I don’t speak Arabic.

At the moment of execution the rebels grasped his throat. The young man put up a struggle. Three or four rebels pinned him down. The man tried to protect his throat with his hands, which were still tied together. He tried to resist but they were stronger than he was and they cut his throat. They raised his head into the air. People waved their guns and cheered. Everyone was happy that the execution had gone ahead.

Should the U.S. military be used to help those jihadist thugs take control of Syria?

If Obama gets us into this war, it has the potential to spin totally out of control very rapidly.

Let us hope and pray that it does not happen. Because if we do go to war in Syria, it could ultimately lead us down the road to World War III.