9 Sep 2013 10:10 PM EST
- by Alex Mangini, Staff Writer; Image: Former CIA Chief and Army General David Petraeus testifying in front of Congress in 2007 (Image Source: United States Department of Defense / Wikimedia Commons)
In an exclusive statement released to POLITICO, disgraced former Army General David H. Petraeus endorsed a backing by Congress for President Obama's call for military intervention in Syria, with the former CIA director calling a strike against Bashar al-Assad “necessary” as a way to send a message to “Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors.”
“Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world,” Petraeus told the website.
So far, outlooks in both the House and the Senate predict Congress to rule against the President's call for action. The retired four-star general, though, suggested that it would be a mistake for such a decision to be reached.
“I strongly support congressional approval of President Obama’s request for authority to undertake military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad. Such action is necessary in order to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and to degrade the regime’s overall military capabilities," Petraeus said.
“Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world. Military action against the Syrian regime is, thus, necessary not just to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, but also to ensure that Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors never underestimate the United States’ resolve to take necessary military action when other tools prove insufficient.”
On Tuesday, supporters of Marco Rubio got a little rough with protesters dressed as robots. Witnesses said that people holding "New Hampshire is Marco Rubio Country" signs used them as shields...
The government said Tuesday for the first time since 2004, U.S. drivers are expected to pay on average less than $2 a gallon for gasoline. They can thank the huge glut of oil around the globe....