WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senior officials at the White House confirm President Barack Obama is weighing a limited military strike against Syria in response to that country’s use of chemical weapons.

Congressman David McKinley (R-WV) said the U.S. should not lead a military strike on Syria.

Reports indicated such an attack on Syria would possibly last no more than two days and utilize cruise missiles to strike military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

First District Congressman David McKinley (R-WV) said he opposes a military strike against Syria.

“We’re not the police enforcement of the world.  I think the President has other tools in his holster, in his tool box, and he should be using those,” said McKinley.

He said the U.S. is “war weary.”  “I have too much of a concern that we’re going to have boots on the ground and I don’t want to risk any more blood, American blood, in the Middle East,” he said.

McKinley said there has to be a line somewhere for the United States.  “When do we stop?” he asked on Tuesday’s MetroNews “Talkline.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. Department of Defense has provided President Obama with “all options for all contingencies.”

Syria’s allies, China and Russia, have issued warnings against military intervention in Syria.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • Luke

    In Lybia, the President acted out of concern that tens of thousands of Lybians MIGHT be massacred, In Syria, it is estimated that nearly 100,000 have ALREADY been killed by Assad, Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have already fled the country to Jordan, where their mere presence is threatening the stability of one of the few regimes left in the Middle East friendly to the US.

    The UN can't act because the Russians and the Chinese have vetoes in the Security Council. NATO can't act without US involvement as the US is the only country with the military power to take any kind of action against Syria.

    Both President Obama and the Vice President Biden asserted prior to 2003, that President Bush was without authority to commit US forces in Iraq without Congressional approval. Bush not only sought but obtained Congressional and UN approval to use force in Iraq. He also had the support of the American people.

    President Obama has neither sought nor obtained either Congressional or UN approval to use force in Syria. The very same path he took with respect to Lybia.

    If you are an isolationist, then President Dither is your man. This President has no coherent foreign policy, so thus we find ourselves in this mess once again.

    Like it or not, the US is the only country on this planet that has the capability of intervening on behalf of innocent civilians in Syria. Had we acted diplomatically earlier, when the so-called Arab Spring began we might have made a difference. That opportunity is no longer available and we are left with the choice of doing nothing or taking military action. If the President and the Congress choose the latter let's hope that the action taken will be sufficient to persuade or prevent Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people and to give the secular Rebel faction a chance to solidify its hold on portions of the Syrian countryside.

  • Alice Click

    I agree with Gary Bauer: Getting Serious With Syria?

    A confrontation with Syria appears inevitable. Here's what has happened in the past 24 hours:

    Yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and declared that the Assad regime had in fact used chemical weapons, crossing Barack Obama's "red line." Kerry called the use of such weapons "a moral obscenity" that was "inexcusable and undeniable."

    According to the Washington Post, U.S. naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean Sea are "already positioned" for cruise missile attacks. British jets are scrambling on Cyprus. Reuters reports that Syrian rebel groups have been told to "expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces within days."

    Russia, China and Iran warned against military action. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that "the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council is a crude violation of the international law." So much for Hillary's famous "reset" of U.S./Russian relations.

    One Iranian military commander predicted nothing would happen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi said, "[The Americans] are incapable of starting a new war in the region, because of their lacking economic capabilities and their lack of morale." Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran threatened Israel, warning that an attack on Syria would have "perilous consequences" that "will not be restricted to Syria."

    The Israeli government is taking such threats seriously. It has begun distributing gas masks to the public, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to "respond forcefully" to any attack against his country.

    The American public and conservatives are deeply conflicted about the proper course of action. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday found that only 31% of voters supported increased military assistance, even "if it is confirmed that the Syrian government used chemical weapons." Part of it is war weariness.

    Some is also due to the failure of Obama to regularly explain what our national interests are in the Middle East. And make no mistake about it -- we have significant interests in the Middle East.

    Another problem is the difficulty in identifying the good guys in Syria's civil war. Israeli intelligence estimates there are as many as 90 groups battling the Assad regime. They range from a few pro-Western groups to Al Qaeda extremists. It is hard to see a good outcome in this mess.

    But in the broader context of American power and credibility, here is our dilemma: Obama set a red line. Assad crossed it. Iran is egging him on, providing military assistance and watching to see if Washington has any credibility when it issues an ultimatum.

    If the Middle East can't trust Obama to act against the Syrian government when it crosses a red line of chemical weapons, why would it believe him when he says he will not allow the mullahs in Tehran to have nuclear weapons?

    Even the New York Times gets it. Yesterday, the Times editorial board wrote:

    "Mr. Obama put his credibility on the line when he declared last August that Mr. Assad's use of chemical weapons would constitute a 'red line' that would compel an American response. …Presidents should not make a habit of drawing red lines in public, but if they do, they had best follow through. Many countries (including Iran, which Mr. Obama has often said won't be permitted to have a nuclear weapon) will be watching."

    I doubt if anybody reading this report is an Obama fan. But America is stuck with him, and if he continues to be weak our national security will be in jeopardy long after he is gone.

    That is why I joined with other conservative leaders yesterday in urging Obama to act, and asking for increased efforts to identify who, if anyone in the Syrian opposition, would be worthy of American assistance.

    By the way, it is infuriating to hear Obama suggest he needs U.N. approval or international cooperation. The only thing he needs is the approval of Congress, which he did not seek when he committed U.S. forces to overthrowing former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

    On that point, there is some division among conservatives. I believe the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to initiate military action in defense of U.S. interests in emergency situations. Surely the president has the authority to respond to an attack or to prevent an attack on U.S. citizens.

    But while a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria may well be justified, it does not rise the level of an attack against America that would permit Obama to act on his own. There is no reason, as the world debates, why Congress should not be part of this discussion. George W. Bush sought and received congressional approval to take military action against Saddam Hussein. Barack Obama should seek congressional approval to act against Bashar al-Assad.

    Beyond this immediate crisis, the larger question we face is: What will be left of our economy, our values and our foreign policy credibility after three more years of Obama's failures?

  • susanf

    I don't care for McKinley but in this case, I completely agree w/him; although I suspect that he would be singing a different tune if the current occupant of the White House were a Republican. But regardless of party, the United States needs to stay out of this!! It is not our fault, not our concern, not our business, and not our problem.

  • lee arthur

    We have no business over there.

  • WVSon

    I have long suspected the rebels might resort to such actions to make the government look even worse than it appears. Criminals who cut the heart out of their enemies and eat them will do anything to get the upper hand. Including gassing their own people to get the world to condemn the government forces. There just anyone involved in this that I trust or think we as a nation should support.

  • Jethro Beckley

    Will Hoppy man up and go against this push for war?
    This being in light of his unwitting support and drum beating for the Iraq invasion.

    How bout that US backing of Al Queda in Syria?

  • wvman75

    I dislike my President's policies and politics, but I don't envy his choices here. There is no good answer. We can't really trust either side, but we can't let civilians get killed by chemical or biological weapons. But, it's not like the so-called "rebels" couldn't be behind it to get international involvement. It's got to be a dilemma. I hope the intelligence is right.

    • wvman75

      I just dislike political hyocrites. lol

  • longbeards

    I think we should stay out of this...WE,,America, are not the police of the world. This type of mentality has caused resentment throughout the world for our country and citizens! I have no love for the Syria leadership,,and even less love for the opposition that is mired in radical Islamic leadership. If the UN wants to do it fine,,but don't spend my tax dollars starting a war that will never have a winning side!

    • Fentanyl Bomb

      To post a quote:

      "If the UN wants to do it fine,,but don't spend my tax dollars starting a war that will never have a winning side!"

      We commit and support almost 22% of the UN Budget every year. Your tax dollars are still in play, just as they have been for years.

      650M on the books. Who knows how much more on the edges?

  • Magic Mike

    So who here agrees. Obama will make the wrong decision again.

    • Debra

      No matter what decision he makes, it will be wrong to somebody.

  • Debra

    Sounds to me like an excuse to get involved. The economy always improves temporarily during war. Military gets money, private contractors get more jobs and they spend that money. Unfortunately many young soldiers could pay a heavy price to keep this perpetual war machine going. I am from a career military family, but I am loosing my patients with us trying to be the police of the world. Worried mom.

  • tiredofit

    The only freedom the US govt really defends is the freedom of US corporate interests to rape and pillage any country or peoples that will turn a profit for them. All else is simply lip service and political posturing.

    • Magic Mike

      Corporations hire people.

      • Fentanyl Bomb

        Corporations ARE people.

  • wvman75

    It's going to be funny watching liberals who griped about taking out a dictator who gassed and killed over a hundred thousand of his own people, go along so easily with Obama to try and take out another dictator who gassed his own people and killed a hundred.

  • Rich

    The UN can't go into Syria unless the Security Council agrees, and Russia has vetoed all efforts to do so.

  • jake

    One difference between WW II and Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Korea and other so called wars. Are we in it to win it or pussyfoot around. If we are not in it to win then don't go there. As soon as we had the Bomb in WW II we used it. It's a big cost to pay in lives and money. We need to be on their knees asking what direction to take.

  • Jt

    McKinley has no business being a congressman, he as accomplished NOTHING!
    He is only anti whatever the topic of the day is, if it was free ice cream for all he would be against it. This clown is embarrassing WV and the USA!