Chambliss, The President, and Syria

Chambliss Responds to the President’s Remarks on Syria


BRUNSWICK, GA — Today, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement regarding President Obama’s announcement that he will seek congressional approval for a military strike on Syria:


“I believe the evidence is clear that the president’s red-line was crossed long ago, and the United States must respond. However, while I appreciate the president seeking congressional approval, he should have already presented Congress with a strategy and objectives for military action, including what impact this will have on our allies and enemies alike in the region. Leadership is about reacting to a crisis, and quickly making the hard and tough decisions. The president should have demanded Congress return immediately and debate this most serious issue.”


  1. KingRichard says:

    Way to jump in on the band wagon just before midnight! I am so angry at Chambliss but I will not stop writing and calling his office demanding that he reform himself, congress, and stop Obamacare!

    Honorable Saxby Chambliss our forefathers pledged their support of the declaration of independence, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” — Thomas Jefferson

    What do you stand for Sir? Big, bigger and biggest Federal Government ever! I call you a Statist based on your actions sir!

  2. Michael Silver says:

    Chambliss is a complete moron. He thinks we need to go to war against a foreign country because our president can’t look bad. EXCUSE ME? Does World War 1 sound familiar? 16 million people died and 20 million wounded to defend the honor of treaties and government leaders.

    Chambliss needs to get his head out of Feinstein’s underwear long enough to recognize that we have no national interest in the conflict, none of the parties are our friends and allies, and in some ways we are better off that it continues.

    Republicans wonder why nobody wants to vote for them. Here is example # 454,343,534,434

  3. Spacey G says:

    Saxby Chambliss calling for “debate” is kinda like Arthur Blank asking for a referendum before the people on whether to tax-fund his new toy/stadium. In other words, these kinda people have an agenda to drive-through that they’ve had since they first tasted power and/or money. “Debate” is something only little people dabble in in a plutocracy. Because they have nothing else but words at their disposal.

    No one’s fooling anyone here.

    • John Konop says:

      This is what bothers me, when I hear John Kerry and company bang the drums of war, I feel like I am watching the movie ” Ground Hog Day”. A diferent party same sales job……

      What i find most bizarre is the lack of real questions from both sides on the plan like last time! Can we not stop playing checkers and come up with a real strategy before blowing the place up? How about answering a few simple questions?

      1) Why do you think the people we are arming are any better than the guys in place?

      2) By bombing Syria how does this really have any effect on the end game other than tax payers blowing a few billion dollars and people dying?

      3) How does civilians getting killed in the cross fire of our bombs help with keeping us safe?

      4) Our track record in the past has not been great in picking the right guys so what is diferent today?

      5) If our policy is based on attacking countries based on abuses of their own people, how can we afford this policy, and will this not put us at harms way via spreading out the military?

      I am all for surgical and stratigic strikes if they make sense. Please help us understand the plan. I am lost how so many of you on both sides refuses to hold your candidates in your party accountable.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        What was done in Syria was so horrific we have to do something, and nothing sends the message “we care” like drone attacks or tomahawk missile strikes.

        More seriously, will it eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, or stop the violence?

        The point is military action or support “sends a message”, but then again, so would a facebook post, but without any collateral damage.

        The foregoing largely lifted and modified from the comic strip “This Modern World”.

  4. Three Jack says:

    Saxby should stick to golf until at last we no longer have to address him as senator. This is the same guy who said NSA wasn’t actually listening to calls until it was discovered that yes NSA actually does listen to calls. You can’t trust this guy when it comes to matters of foreign affairs any more than you can trust him to address fiscal concerns here at home.

    • Harry says:

      “Saxby should stick to golf until at last we no longer have to address him as senator.” Can we say the same about Obama as president?

      • Three Jack says:

        Harry, we can say that about many of our reps in DC, but this particular thread is focused on Saxby.

        I used to think the GOP had the award for most hypocrites until after watching the Sunday shows last night. Hard to believe John Kerry could keep a straight face (at least as straight as his face can be kept…geez, botox much there sailboard dude?) while laying out the case for attacking a country that has done nothing to the US, it’s allies or any other country outside it’s own borders. “We must stand united”…really John, you mean like when you voted against Iraq despite the president having multiple countries on board and at least 14 UN resolutions…that kind of united big John?

  5. Three Jack says:

    Boehner and Cantor cave in to pressure, announce they will support bombing a country that has so far not done anything to anyone outside it’s own boundaries —

    I’m curious if anyone (including our soon to be former senator) can explain why America is supporting an Islamic uprising against a leader who in the past has been supportive of Christians in Syria. Neither side offers much hope, but betting on evil no matter who wins doesn’t seem to be a very sustainable strategy.

    • KingRichard says:

      Three Jack is dead right on this one. Reminds me of Reagan when he wrote in his memoirs

      “…the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy…How do you deal with a people driven by such a religious zeal that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to kill an enemy simply because he doesn’t worship the same God they do? People who believe that if they do that, they’ll go instantly to heaven?”

      Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

      Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

      Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

      Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.

      What do our current republicans stand for? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They are a worthless lot.

      • benevolus says:

        That might be relevant if we thought there would be actual troops deployed for whatever we are going to do.
        What would RONALD REAGAN (trumpet flourish) do if he had drones available?

      • gcp says:

        Reagan should have applied this policy before we lost 241 servicemen in the 1983 Beirut bombing during his administration.

        • John Konop says:


          The Powell doctrine was develop in response to the failure in Beirut. The problem is Bush senior a major contributor to the policy son, Bush 2 and Obama seem blind to the advise. You know what they say about repeating the exact same behavior, and expecting a different result. Finally, if you ever read the book ” Art of War”, you would see it was very similar to the Powell doctrine.

        • Three Jack says:

          gcp, You are absolutely correct about Lebanon. Especially Rule #2 as listed above, paraphrased – go in to win utilizing all resources necessary to achieve this goal with as little risk to our warriors as possible. The entire Lebanon mission was doomed to failure because it was done half-ass largely due to Vietnam fatigue still being felt by many military leaders. Marines were exposed daily to attack with many dying prior to the Marine barracks attack which caused Reagan to evacuate the misguided effort.

          Syria will be Lebanon on steroids.

          • John Konop says:


            Seriously I am confused by you……You supported the Iraq strategy from Bush 2, which is opposite to the Reagan strategy post Beriut. Now Obama is back in bed with the NEOCONS ie McCain, Libermen…….and now you are against them.

            This policemen of the world foriegn policy has been a failure since the beginning of time…You should read ” Art of War”. I am hopeful, because finally we are seeing people speaking up from all sides about this failed strategy. Btw if you are a Reagan conservative you would be against the NEOCON strategy.

            • Three Jack says:


              As discussed on a previous thread, there is no comparison between Iraq and the current situation in Syria. No need to rehash the differences here, but maybe you should review what was posted earlier.

              There is a semi-fair comparison to be made between Syria and Lebanon though and I was just off the coast of Beirut aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier for many months as that was going on. I saw firsthand what happens when you go into a situation half-assed and can predict without hesitation a similar outcome in Syria if we proceed as planned.

              Finally would you go into business with an anti-capitalist? Someone who spoke out against the very business you operate? I doubt it. So why would we want to go into battle with leaders who oppose military conflict? Obama, Kerry, Hagel, Pelosi, et al have a long history of vehemently opposing any sort of military intervention no matter the evidence. This is a fools errand and will ultimately be an epic fail if we go in with these folks in charge. I feel for our service men and women.

                • Three Jack says:

                  I could care less about either party John. You want to make a blanket statement that all wars/conflicts are equal when they are not. Make your case that Syria and Iraq are comparable.

                  • John Konop says:

                    The comparable part between the two situations is a lack of a real plan. We have 2 countries that both have tribal groups that hate each other. And in situation like this you have no good guys or bad guys……this is a fight between groups that hate each other and have no rules….in situations like this, history tells you stepping in the middle you generally get hurt.

  6. saltycracker says:

    Current Syrian strike position –

    US – let’s roll but first let’s talk amongst ourselves
    China – no
    Russia – no
    Britain – no
    France – in if US leads
    Australia – let’s roll
    Canada – US go, we’ll watch
    Germany – no
    Greece – US can use our bases
    Italy – wait on UN
    Turkey – wait on UN
    Spain – no comment
    Israel — no comment
    Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon – no or keep playing diplomacy
    Saudi Arabia – ok US
    UN – in conference

    Obama – I need a diversion from the mess I’m making

Comments are closed.