Syrian strongman Bashar Assad will "still be able to eat Cheerios" after a U.S. strike, but he'll have to use a fork and not a spoon. At least that's the metaphor one Obama administration official used to describe the nature of a U.S. strike to USA Today.
The New York Times reported on September 5 that the United States is widening plans for proposed strikes on Syria to punish the Assad government for its alleged chemical weapons attacks. The plans now reportedly include the use of aircraft in addition to cruise missiles:
Susan Rice famously blamed the Benghazi terror attack that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on an Internet video. She further said the terror attack occurred after a spontaneous protest over that anti-Muslim film got out of hand, instead of blaming the al Qaeda backed terrorists responsible for the murders.
Jane Harman is a former member of the House of Representatives and a lifetime member in good standing of the political class and, hence, a guest from time to time on Meet the Press where the panel discussions are carried on in a language that is known as "high beltway."
When Congress returns to Washington next week, it will begin an intensive and historic debate over authorizing military force against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria—a debate whose outcome is very much uncertain.
In a press conference today, President Obama defended his proposed Syria action:
"Over 1400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something that we fabricated, this is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action," said Obama. "As I said last night, I was elected to end wars, not start 'em."
In a briefing with the press, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said that any military strike on Syria would be a response to chemical weapons--and would "not [intend] to resolve the underlying political crisis within Syria." Instead, "the underlying political crisis within Syria" would be dealt with diplomatically, he said.