This is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal.

Alan Grayson needs to start talking about how this is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal. And Obama has made it clear he will attack even without Congressional approval which would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution in addition to being a violating of international law.

"The House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway." - Obama, Congress and Syria, The president is celebrated for seeking a vote on his latest war even as his aides make clear it has no binding effect. His track record shows he doesn't care if Congress doesn't authorize his wars, he'll do it anyway. President Obama has made it crystal clear that even if Congress votes against authorization, he intends on attacking Syria anyway. The only way to protect ourselves it to impeach him now.

 And I don't know if Grayson points out that there is a pattern of dishonesty to make up excuses for using the military. Obama was brazenly dishonest to claim Libya wasn't hostilities. Bush has repeatedly claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in.

 This whole thing is ridiculous, what would the Syria's government motive be for supposedly doing a chemical attack? To give the US a pretext to attack Syria? The Syrian government wouldn't want that. Meanwhile rebels would have everything to gain from it: To give the US a pretext to attack Syria. The rebels would want that. And there are reports that the rebels could have been responsible for the Sarin gas being released, either on purpose or by accident. We are expected to believe Obama but he lied about Libya, so we know he will lie to make up an excuse to attack a country using US weapons. And new weapons have to be purchased to replace the ones used.

 AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk' "A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials."

 U.S. case for strike on Syria has too many holes, critics say 

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

John Kerry's Very Precise Death Toll: Where Does It Come From?

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

 AIPAC on an island: ‘Politico’ report says Israel lobby alone in pushing for war in Syria

'NYT' Cuts References to AIPAC in Syria Debate

 "The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive. Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrian ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him." - US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses DEBKAfile Special Report September 7, 2013, 8:41 AM

If the Syria government is so strong that even after a massive U.S. attack planned by Obama, it still wouldn't topple Assad, why the hell would he have supposedly resorted to using chemical weapons against the rebels? If Syria has such a military edge over the rebels, and they were supposedly willing to indiscriminately kill civilians, then why instead of a chemical attack didn't they simply use conventional weapons? Why would they use a weapons that Obama had declared was a "red line" when they had no need to and when they have a military edge over the rebels? It doesn't make sense that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons after UN inspectors arrived in Damascus and give Obama an excuse to attack Syria and the same person who wants you to buy that also tried to sell the idea that he had the right to attack Libya because he claimed it wasn't hostilities.


An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive Chemical weapons allegedly left hundreds of Syrians dying and writhing in pain, but the attack's timing seems odd.