The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Saturday called the U.S.-Russia accord to bring Syria’s chemical weapons under international control “significant progress toward protecting our national security and global stability.”
But two senior Republicans on his committee – Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – blasted the agreement as a sign of U.S. “weakness.”
they have a short attention span, first they were gung ho for invasion, then Pres. was, then they were not, Pres.'s usual thoughtful process wanted to be sure he was doing the right thing, they called him weak and not leading,
now an option has come to the table that should satisfy those indecisives on both sides and takes away the threat, they are not convinced pres. is not totally on board Reagan, "trust but verify", Pres. verify then verify" and he wants to give this time to work republicans call him weak again with their "hurry up and make up your mind so we can make up ours".
The chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said it was "an enforceable agreement with the potential to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons would be an even better outcome than the goals of the authorization approved just a few days ago – not just deterring and degrading [Bashar] Assad's chemical weapons capability, but eliminating it altogether."But he warned in a statement after the framework agreement was announced in Geneva: "As the president said, the United States remains prepared to act if Syria does not implement this agreement. Russia and Syria sought two things in any agreement: a promise on our part not to use military force, and an end to international support for the Syrian opposition. This agreement includes neither item."Just as the credible threat of a strike against Syria's chemical capability made this framework agreement possible," Levin concluded, "we must maintain that credible threat to ensure that Assad fully complies with the agreement."
so will the republican obstructionist please point out the part that shows Pres. as being weak?
