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


  • 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!

  • 2XLPatriot

    Considering the amount of money the U.S. gives to the U.N., let them go in with a peace keeping force for once. I'm sure Ban Ki Moon can go without luxuries for a few minutes to fund the U.N. peacekeepers while they do the job. These people have been slaughtering each other for CENTURIES! Do we honestly think that being in existance for 237 years is going to make up for thousands of years of genocide and change their minds? Seriously, we need to depart and stay out of the muslim countries. Seal our own borders, limit immigration from these nations and take care of our own for once.

  • Rich

    I guess McKinley would have similarly opposed the intervention in the atrocities and Holocaust in WWII because we are "not the police enforcement for the world."

    • Dale

      Not a good comparison,we didn't get involved in WWII because of the Holocaust,we got involved because we were attacked at Pearl Harbour.

  • Herd 1

    For those of us old enough to remember, the latest spelling of Vietnam is going to be S-Y-R-I-A, which was preceded by I-R-A-Q and A-F-G-H-A-N-I-S-T-A-N.

    I can still see Walter Cronkite announcing the weekly casualty figures from that war each Thursday on The CBS Evening News.

    To borrow a line from the Steppenwolf song "Monster": "We don't know how to mind our own business, 'cause the whole world's got to be just like us...".

    Once again rich, old men sending poor, young men to die. Politicians on both sides of the aisle rarely find a war they don't like, provided they can find a way to score political points.
    Performance-enhanced armchair generals will pound their chests and justify our getting involved in the same way.

    Do we ever learn? Heck, no.

  • john

    I tuned into McKinley's interview this a.m., not knowing who the speaker was. After 5 minutes, I thought."who is this goof?" I agreed with his position, but felt like I was listening to someone with a 6th grade education. I was shocked when Hoppy called him by name. This guy isn't congressional material. He babbled like a complete ninny. Pathetic!

  • Shawn

    It's sad that Obama didn't care about the hundreds of thousands that have died in Syria in this civil war, yet now all of a sudden, a hundred die from chemical weapons and that crosses the line. This has nothing to do with chemical weapons. We have been arming the Syrian rebels for a while. That's why Benghazi happened. We were running guns through Turkey to them. The embassador was the point man. Obama is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. We are treading on dangerous ground. Russia and China are more powerful than you know. I hope I'm wrong, but if we strike Syria, It will end up bad for us.


    The problem I have is nothing ever changes after we do take action.
    The USA spends lives and money we have borrowed from China and then think we have actually changed something.
    If a country(USA) takes military action it should be decisive! Not the half-baked attempts we have seen for the last 50 years. If you can't rectify yourself to total elimination of the enemy then why bother? I am not a warmonger but I do believe if we are sending our young people to fight for anybody's freedom and risk the loss of 1 of our soldiers, It needs to be decisive!

    Maybe this is the answer. Just stay out of it until as in WWII it directly effects our homeland.

    You can not argue with history, in almost all places we have sent our young boys and girls, the people there have been figthing for hundreds of years and they will continue to fight after we have gone! It has always been and always will be.
    From a man who knew a few things about war:

    "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war"

    "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
    Douglas MacArthur
    God Bless

    • Dr. Sarcasm

      Totally agree

    • AX MAN

      The changes that will occur, will be, we will spend millions of dollar on the attack and many more millions to re-built, just like Iraq.

    • Charleston,WV

      Well stated!

  • Damion45

    Maybe we can do a "Clinton" and blow up some goats with expensive cruise missles.
    I frankly don't believe anything Obama is saying about this. We always seem to back the wrong horse and support the bad guys.

  • Cory

    I'm not a betting man but I were I would wager $500.00 McKinnley was all for going into Iraq.

  • Dr. Sarcasm

    We need to be the redecorators of the world and make the middle east into a new sheet of glass, sans Israel.

    • Vinnie

      Detect some anti-Semitism there Doc?

      • Matt

        Sans means without or absence.

        The rebels did this attack, Asad would only gain another enemy to fight in America and another half dozen countries in joint efforts. Who uses chemical weapons during the course of winning a war?? Chemical weapons are used as a means of desperation. The rebels on the other hand, would gain weapons and support from around the world. Don't believe the media on this. He who controls the media controls the worlds information.

        America needs to stay out.

  • Joe Cool

    If Obama said Syria needs to resolve this on their own, I wonder if he would agree. Riiiiiiight.

  • Ashamed!

    McKinley should be ashamed of his comments. The United States isn't the police of the world- rather America is the defender of freedom for all. Imagine living in a country where you're own government is killing your parents, your children, your family because you stand up for freedom. Seeing video of innocent children being murdered by chemical weapons, by their own government turns my stomach. The United States needs to send a strong message. God bless our men and women who fight for our freedom everything. Their courageous acts help protect not only Americans but innocent people across the globe. Shame on you Congressman. You've lost my vote.

    • susanf

      Well, then I hope you and yours sign up to go over there and "rescue" the poor Syrian people. As for me, I don't give a rat's a$$ about Syria but I DO care very much about American soldiers who will be put in danger if, or more likely when, we get ourselves involved in this mess. The whole damn Middle East is not worth one drop of precious American blood.

    • Dr. Sarcasm

      There is no evidence the Syrian govt did it. I dont believe anything that anyone says from there. Its sectarian violence, niether side wants freedom for thier people

  • Hillbilly


  • Iggs

    This is a JOKE!!!! If Bush was president we would have already bombed half of Syria!! McKinley would have been licking his shoes in honor of getting us into another conflict. Does McKinley think we are that stupid? He needs to look at a little political history and see how many Democrats said, we are not the police enforcement of the world, back in the Bush's Wars days.

    • Vinnie

      Big difference is that Bush took action against Afghanistan post 9/11 and against Irag due to a consensus opinion even among liberals like Hillary; that there were WMD's. Obama came to office promising to change this and end conflict. He has done neither. We cannot continue to take up for every person wronged in the world and there is no evidence that the Syrian government is behind this; deplorable as they may be