I am pleased that the president has decided to ask Congress before taking action on Syria’s chemical weapons. It is now time for the White House to make the case for taking action.

Making the case means factual evidence, not anecdotal, that chemical weapons were used.

Making the case means proof that the Syrian government ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Twelve years ago, U.S. spy agencies such as the National Security Agency, either lied to the public, or gave faulty information about weapons of mass destruction. Today, the NSA seems technically capable of spying on fellow Americans and others, but this time its “word” should be backed by other sources.

Information from the U.N. inspectors should be examined.

If the proof is found, the case for a missile strike then must be made. Does that eliminate the problem while causing limited collateral damage?

If the leader of Syria gassed his own people, that is a war crime and he has to go. Any future government formed cannot have him involved in it. When the hostilities end, he should be brought to justice for his crime.

The jury who will decide American involvement is the Congress and the American people. I am strongly opposed to missile strikes, nonetheless, I approve of the president bringing this before Congress and the public.

The War Against Weapons That Did Not Exist should have been declared a mistrial. There was a rush to judgment, and it was the wrong judgment. This time, I hope this president will make his case and then abide by the verdict.

George Hunt


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.