21st Century Wire says…
The House of Commons falls in on PM David Cameron, as his bid for war in Syria has failed…
From London to Washington…
The Obama administration and the neo-liberal surrogates within mainstream media have continued to try to save face, even after British parliamentary sessions ended David Cameron’s bid for war in Syria, leaving the Prime Minister “undeniably” humiliated.
The humiliation doesn’t end there…
This will prove to be a crushing blow to Obama’s planned strike against the sovereign nation, as 98 Republicans and 18 Democrats in congress have now come forward to question the constitutionality of such a conflict and are ready to be called back in session.
Over the past day, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have issued a signed letter concerned over potential constitutional violations by the US president, headed by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), the letter states :
“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.”
There is no doubt that the Obama ‘media machine’ is already busy trying to reframe his “Red Line” stance, back-tracking on his electioneering tough talk prior to become president again.
Will Obama go “solo” in Syria, based on dodgy intelligence information? Only time will tell.
We sincerely hope not.
All this week, we’ve seen an outpour of emotion through various protests over a possible Syrian strike, reminding us that humanity can regain its footing.
One thing is clear, support for the planned strike on Syria has quickly faded away…
Syria Strikes Recede as Cameron, Obama Seek Support
James G. Neuger & John Walcott
The prospect of an imminent attack on Syria faded as U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, the U.S.’s top ally, struggled to win parliamentary backing for military strikes that critics said echoed the push to war in Iraq.
Britain released an assessment showing it “highly likely” the Syrian government was behind the mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21 near Damascus. Still, Cameron bowed to opposition demands to await a judgment by onsite United Nations inspectors. The Obama administration is also laboring to marshal conclusive evidence backing its assertion that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was directly responsible for the attack, said three intelligence officials familiar with the situation.
A United Nations arms expert collects samples during an inspection of the site where rockets had fallen in the eastern Ghouta suburb near Damascus. Photographer: Ammar al-Arbini/AFP via Getty Images
Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, talks about whether the U.S. should take military action against Syria and the outlook for budget negotiations. Van Hollen speaks with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.” Stephanie Ruhle also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)
A Syrian rebel holds his assault rifle over his shoulder as he monitors a street in the city of Aleppo. Photographer: Francisco Leong/AFP via Getty Images
Memories of the invasion of Iraq, based on false intelligence of an Iraqi stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, are slowing efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to rally support for strikes against Syria to halt the regime’s use of chemical arms in the two-year-old civil war, which the UN estimates has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
“This is not like Iraq,” Cameron said in a House of Commons debate today. “What we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different. We’re not invading a country.”
Opposition leader Ed Miliband, while not ruling out military strikes, warned against following “an artificial timetable or a political timetable set elsewhere.”
Britain’s debate resonated across Europe and in the U.S., where Obama’s top advisers, including Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, were scheduled to give a conference call briefing to congressional leaders and key members of committees dealing with national security. It won’t include a classified analysis of the chemical weapons attack by intelligence agencies.