On his second day back at "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart skewered Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for playing poker on his iPhone during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria Tuesday.

"McCain! You've been hawking Syria for a year!" Stewart said. "And now you can't be bothered because you're a river card away from crushing 'stashman_42?'"

"You know what, senator? Go. There's a rascal scooter and a bucket of quarters with your name on it over at the Golden Nugget. You can play all the video poker you want, 99 cent prime rib. Instead of playing pretend poker in the actual Senate, go to an actual casino and pretend you know what the government should do."

McCain laughed off the controversy, but it quickly become a topic of some controversy.

He joked that the "worst part" about the game was that he lost "thousands of dollars"— a joke that didn't quite land with CNN host Wolf Blitzer, who thought he was playing with actual money. 

"You know, if there's one thing I've learned in my career, it's this. A joke always lands better if you repeat it a second time," Stewart quipped.

Here's the clip, in which you'll also learn how Jon Stewart says "gif":

Join the conversation about this story »

Yesterday's Senate panel resolution for a limited strike on Syria included a few key lines that could foreshadow the involvement of ground forces.

Julian Barnes of the WSJ reports [emphasis ours]:

The revised options under development, which reflect Pentagon concerns that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dispersed his military equipment, include the use of Air Force bombers to supplement the four Navy destroyers armed with missiles that are deployed in the eastern Mediterranean. Initially, Pentagon planners said they didn't intend to use aircraft in the proposed strikes.

...

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Wednesday saying a goal of U.S. policy will be to "change the momentum on the battlefield'' in Syria's civil war and speed a negotiated removal of Mr. Assad. The measure would ban the use of ground forces in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations" and sets a 60-day limit for Mr. Obama to launch strikes. It includes a possible 30-day extension if Mr. Obama determined that was needed to meet the resolution's goals.

Despite several recent posts insisting the administration and Congress have opened the door for a more escalated conflict, Obama insisted from the beginning that the goal of the strikes is "not about regime change."

But now it seems that things have escalated. Even in Libya, we learned that air operations most often require boots on the ground.

Transcripts from Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" on Fox News, March 24, 2011 [emphasis ours]:

O'Reilly:  A former Army intelligence officer, and from Boston, Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst. So we hear special forces are already on the ground in Libya. True, Col. Hunt?

Hunt: Yes, absolutely. You've got British service been in there about three weeks ago and actually got captured and released. The French GIGN have been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence operatives and their assets. We do not conduct operations like this, large scale air operations, without people on the ground.

The administration went to great lengths to deny that any special operations forces were on the ground in Libya, despite assertions to the contrary. Later though, somewhat prophetically to today, the "loss" of several SA-7 surface-to-air missiles required the deployment of a moderately sized ground force of active duty troops and CIA operatives.

Flash forward two years to Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons, reportedly the largest in the world, and likely dispersed across the country.

If the aim is now to shift the momentum on the ground in order to force the ouster of President Assad, those chemical weapons and their locations will have to be secured. The U.S. has been training rebels to secure these stockpiles for quite some time, but the presence those fractious, disorganized rebel groups offer is superficial at best.

The Pentagon last year estimated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure those chemical weapons stockpiles — and it's likely that estimate is not in terms of rag-tag rebels, but rather modern, armed and trained soldiers.

Still, Washington maintains that there is "specific writing" in the resolution which bans putting troops on the ground. Though that resolution needs to be renewed every 60 days. The Libyan bombing campaign took seven months.

It's well within reason to expect the resolution to be amended during this campaign in order to support "changing needs on the ground" — a common phrase for military commanders — leading to troop deployments.

With Israel a stone's throw from that stockpile — and the Iron Dome missiles defense system useless against chemical dispersant— securing it would be top on Obama's list, should the regime suddenly change.

The New York Times noted last year that Hezbollah militants had moved their camps close to these chemical weapons depots.

An easterly wind and a shower of chemical weapons could put most of Israel underground in gas masks.

Seeing those weapons move, as David Sanger wrote last November, could force President Obama, as he said in August, to "change [his] calculus" about inserting American forces into Syria." 

SEE ALSO: US Marines and Syrian rebels have more in common that you think

Join the conversation about this story »

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC that the U.K. had fresh evidence of the use of chemical weapons near Damascus on August 21.

CNN is reporting that the U.K. is now saying that clothing samples taken from the site of the attack in the suburbs of the capital test positive for sarin.

A British source told AFP that a soil and cloth samples have "tested positive for sarin."

The Independent also reports that soil and clothing collected for the site and tested at the secret Porton Down laboratories contained traces of sarin gas.

Sarin is a nerve toxin so deadly that just one drop can kill a grown man. The fatality typically comes from cardiac arrest or suffocation, as overstimulated muscles around the heart and lungs eventually seize and stop working altogether.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that sarin was used in the attack, which the U.S. estimates killed 1,429 people and caused "neurotoxic symptoms" in thousands  of others.

The Obama administration is currently trying to convince Congress to approve a strike on the Syrian government in response to the chemical attack.

SEE ALSO: This Is What Happens To Someone Hit By The Nerve Toxin Allegedly Used By Assad

Join the conversation about this story »

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee grilled State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Thursday, repeatedly asking her how Secretary of State John Kerry found it "courageous" for President Barack Obama to seek Congressional authorization of military force in Syria. 

Lee's argument came from this premise: How is it "courageous" for Obama to ask for Congress to approve something that he believes he has the right to do, anyway?

"I don't understand why he is so full-throatedly in favor of this," Lee said. "He over the weekend said the president was acting courageously by taking this to Congress, and I don't understand what is courageous about asking permission for something that you say you don't need and to do what you believe to be the right thing not just morally but in general.

"Can you explain why this is a courageous move, and why the secretary would call it a courageous move?"

Psaki's response followed the White House's standard line — that Kerry believes limited, targeted strikes, and Congressional approval for those strikes, are the "right step."

Cutting off her answer, Lee asked, "Was there some kind of, like, group spine-removal procedure at the White House over the weekend? I don't understand. How is this courageous?"

Psaki replied that though both Obama and Kerry believe that Obama has the authority to carry out military action, their case strengthens with the backing of Congress.

The Free Beacon has video of the back and forth:

Join the conversation about this story »

Without waiting for evidence from the U.N. inspectors, it appears that the U.S. and France are prepared to justify Syrian cruise missile strikes with evidence that relies rather heavily on YouTube videos and social media postings.

The White House situational assessment cites "videos ... [and] thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area" along with U.S intelligence information, and accounts from medical personnel, witnesses, journalists, and nongovernmental organizations.

France also used YouTube videos as key evidence, according to Foreign Policy:

Like the United States, the French relied on YouTube videos of the Aug. 21 attack for clues as to what occurred -- and even published six of the videos used in its analysis. The French were only able to confirm 281 casualties from the attack using open-source videos, far less than the 1,429 deaths that the U.S. assessment claims. However, the French report says that its modeling efforts, which attempt to project the full impact of the strike, are consistent with the higher death toll.

In Britain, YouTube videos also played "a key part of the Government's dossier of intelligence justifying imminent missile strikes," according to The Telegraph.

Most of the videos [GRAPHIC] in question show people suffering from what appears to be a chemical attack. Other videos show the types of ordnance likely used in the attacks.

YouTube itself is new to war. It didn't exist until after the American invasion of Iraq. Still, it seems unusual to include unverified videos in intelligence estimates that attempt to show conclusively the use of chemical weapons.

Even a New York Times report the day of the attack reports that, although the prodigious amount of videos is shocking, it's hard to use them to conclude on anything beyond the deaths of several hundred people.

From the Times:

But even with videos, witness accounts and testimonies by emergency medics, it was impossible to say for certain how many people had been killed and what exactly had killed them. The rebels blamed the government, the government denied involvement and Russia accused the rebels of staging the attack to implicate President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Dan Kaszeta, author of “CBRN and Hazmat Incidents at Major Public Events: Planning and Response” and former Army Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) officer, discussed the limits of videos as evidence: about relying on videos as a source of visual evidence:

To date, the public (and this author as well) have been largely reduced to examining the video evidence. One piece of physical evidence can be worth more than 100 videos. There are both practical and hypothetical limits to what we can do with videos. They are not a substitute for physical evidence. Unfortunately, conventional warfare is unkind to physical evidence.

Meanwhile Russia and China stand in the way of the U.S. taking the legal path through the U.N. Security Council, citing a clear lack of conclusive evidence of chemical attacks perpetrated by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

All is not lost though, the Obama administration can simply wait for the U.N. to conclude its investigation.

From CNN:

"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television.

Putin said he "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on military strikes given strong evidence -- but also cautioned against the U.S. striking without one.

The knee-jerk reaction against the appearance of "circumstantial" evidence is one the world still feels from America's last venture into Iraq.

The Washington Post's Katrina vanden Heuvel summed it up best:

Members of Congress should probe and test the administration’s evidence, given the credibility gap created by the faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq war, not to mention the lies and distortions peddled by the Bush administration to sell that conflict. Congress should also arrange to receive and consider the report of the U.N. inspectors, because their report will be accepted by other members of the international community and will offer clues about those behind the attacks even if the mandate of the inspectors does not cover who was responsible for the alleged use of chemical weapons.

If in fact the Syrian government committed this atrocity, that only opens the question for Congress and the American people.

The U.N. is working around the clock to process their evidence, it should come in due time.

Now the next question is: what happens if that evidence doesn't support the West's proposed course of action?

Join the conversation about this story »

The Russians have called B.S. on the Western push to blame the Syrian chemical weapons attack on President Bashar al-Assad, releasing a 100-page "scientific and technical" report blaming the attack on the rebels.

While Russia's stance has been dismissed by many in the West as an effort to protect its Syrian allies, it should be noted that military intervention may be even more necessary if the rebels have got ahold of chemical weapons. 

“The risks of the [proliferation] of Syria’s chemical weapons are real," Cornell professor Kathleen Vogel said late last year. “In light of the mounting instability of Syrian military forces and the growing chaos in the country, there are dangers from the loss of tight command and control of its weapons facilities."

If fractious rebel groups have gained access to and fabricated the ability to weaponize Assad's chemical stockpiles, their proliferation poses a significant threat to all neighboring nations — Russian and American ally alike.

 The rebels are neither as moderate as the administration would have everyone believe, nor are they as centralized.

CJ Chivers of The New York Times described them as:

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

On the other hand, Chivers says of the two major Al Qaeda extremists groups:

They have established a firm presence in parts of Aleppo and Idlib Provinces and in the northern provincial capital of Raqqa and in Deir al-Zour, to the east on the Iraqi border.

Certainly the two strongest extremist presences outside Assad's army are highly unpredictable and Al Qaeda-linked, while the moderates are at times loosely related bands of sometimes "fewer than 300 fighters," Chivers describes, often with motivations of their own.

Allowing any chemical stockpiles to fall into any of their hands could have catastrophic outcomes, forcing foreign intervention.

What's more, this form of intervention would likely have to involve ground troops.

It might look something like this: With approval from the UN, multilateral special operations forces would arrive on the ground in conjunction with CIA Special Activities Division and other clandestine operators.

They would work in concert with previously vetted and trained units to not only find targets — both human and materiel — but locate and surveil chemical weapons stockpiles. 

Shortly following their arrival, the air campaign would begin. Then a hopefully short and limited ground campaign — centered on, again hopefully, a preplanned operation aimed at securing the stockpiles and a Syrian led restructuring of governance.

That's the type of scenario we're looking at it if it is proven that rebels used chemical weapons. If it is proven that Assad used the weapons, on the other hand, even Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that he would not be against a strike.

While it's not certain who used chemical weapons, it clear that chemical weapons were used. British scientists announced today that they found traces of the deadly Sarin nerve gas on clothing gathered from the site of the Aug. 21 gas attack in Syria.

Whatever happens next won't be pretty.

Join the conversation about this story »

While President Barack Obama presses the case abroad, Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of his administration are looking to shore up some of the President's base of liberal Democrats to support his plan of limited military action in Syria.

On Thursday, a State Department spokesperson said in an email, Kerry held an off-the-record session with foreign policy columnists. Later in the day, he is scheduled to appear on MSNBC in an interview with Chris Hayes, who has been one on the left resistant to entering into the conflict. 

And on Friday afternoon, Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power will be featured at a public event at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, where she will "discuss the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians and the need for an international response."

The push comes as Obama faces perhaps more than expected pushback from his base on Syria — threatening the chances of a resolution passing the House of Representatives. Though they should be greeted with skepticism with so much time left before a vote, various whip counts do not paint a rosy picture for passage in the House.

The White House also held a call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 70-plus member group, to try to convince them of the President's plan for action. 

“If we don’t do this, Assad will have a message that he can use these weapons with impunity," Kerry said in the interview with Hayes, according to an advance transcript released by the network.

"We will have turned our back on the next batch of children, on the next batch of parents. We will have turned out back on the international norm. We will have lost credibility in the world, and I guarantee you if we turn our backs today, the picture we all saw in the paper today and the media of those people being shot, that will take place more because more extremists will be attracted to this because they will be funded as the only alternative in order to take on Assad.”

The White House's thinking is that its liberal base will be easier to persuade than a growing number of libertarian Republicans who oppose intervention in Syria, as well as Republicans who normally vote against Obama's wishes. 

Polls show that the White House has a lot of work to do, however — even in convincing its base. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a grassroots progressive organization, released a poll Wednesday that showed 73% of its members oppose military intervention in Syria. And 52% said they don't believe Obama and Kerry when they say certain things are true in Syria as justification for military action

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers a limited military strike to deter Syria from using chemical weapons would likely cost tens of millions of dollars, but if past experience is a guide, the number could be substantially higher than that.

It is not uncommon for U.S. forces to open an assault by launching scores of Tomahawk missiles costing over $1 million apiece and dropping bombs from radar-evading B-2 planes that fly 18 hours each way from their base at a cost of $60,000 an hour.

"I was surprised when I heard him (Hagel) say tens of millions of dollars. That's low-balling it," said Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

He said the defense secretary might have been thinking of what the Pentagon would have to spend during the remainder of the 2013 fiscal year, which ends on September 30.

Most of the cost of an action against Syria would be for replacing munitions that were used, funds that would not be required until after the 2014 fiscal year begins on October 1.

The Pentagon probably would pay for the munitions with a supplemental war-funding request to Congress, which would not be subject to current budget spending caps, Harrison said.

"If you include the replacement costs of munitions, it (an operation against Syria) could cost half a billion, up to a billion dollars depending on the number of targets they go after," he said.

Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a thousand-mile (1,600-km) range, can loiter on station and change their targets in flight, are expected to be the main weapon if President Barack Obama orders a limited strike to punish Syria over its suspected use of chemical weapons.

The missiles cost $1.2 million to $1.5 million apiece.

The U.S. Navy fired 221 Tomahawks in operations against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, nearly half of them - 110 - in an opening salvo against 22 Libyan military targets, including air defenses, communications and command structures.

If U.S. forces used a similar number of missiles to hit Syrian targets related to chemical weapons use by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the cost would top $100 million.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the top U.S. Navy officer, said on Thursday that operations so far haven't required unexpected spending.

U.S. warships in the region were all overseas as part of regular operations. The Navy has four guided missile destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean and the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz with its supporting vessels in the Red Sea.

"The ships ... were all forward deployed, so we haven't surged anybody over for this ... specifically," Greenert told the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

But the Nimitz was scheduled to rotate home after being replaced in the Arabian Sea by the USS Harry S Truman, so if it is held much longer in the region it could result in an unplanned hit to the budget, he said. A supplemental budget request might be needed to pay for an operation, he said.

Greenert said it costs about $25 million a week for a carrier strike group in routine operations. If the carrier was used in military operations, the cost would rise to $40 million a week as a result of longer flight hours for its planes.

While Hagel estimated the cost of a Syrian operation at tens of millions of dollars at a House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday, Pentagon officials have declined to elaborate on his remarks or discuss costs further.

"I'm not going to get into specific numbers because I don't want to suggest that we have a precise picture of the military operation that would be conducted," Pentagon spokesman George Little told a briefing on Thursday.

He also declined to speculate on how the Pentagon would pay for such an operation at a time of tight budgets.

"This is in the national security interests of the United States," Little said. "When something is that important, we'll find a way to pay for it."

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Join the conversation about this story »

A number of Sen. John McCain’s constituents are not happy with the Arizona Republican’s support of President Barack Obama’s plan to take military action against Syria. Voters made that much perfectly clear when they confronted him at a town hall in Phoenix on Thursday.

“We didn’t send you to make war for us. We sent you to stop the war,” one man said to applause, CNN reports.

Another man told McCain Congress is ignoring its duty to represent voters.

“This is what I think of Congress,” he said, holding a bag of marshmallows in his hand. “They are a bunch of marshmallows. That’s what they are. That’s what they’ve become. Why are you not listening to the people and staying out of Syria? It’s not our fight.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday afternoon passed a new use-of-force resolution that, if passed by the Senate, will give Obama authority to carry out military strikes. It also includes a loophole that may leave room for placing troops on the ground.

The resolution only prohibits “the use of United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” The language seems to leave open the possibility of deploying troops for non-combat operations, such as securing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons.

“Polls this week have shown more Americans oppose military strikes in Syria than support them,”CNN reports.

A woman at the Arizona town hall, claiming to have an 18-year-old cousin in Syria, said the U.S. had not pursued all routes of diplomacy.

“For me, to listen to you say there is no good option in Syria – I refuse to believe that…The good option right now is to take Saudi Arabia and Iran and force them to stop supporting the two sides in Syria. And you could do it. You can do it by diplomacy, not bombs, Sen. McCain. We cannot afford to shed more Syrian blood,” she said.

McCain validated the voters’ concerns, saying that there are “strong feelings” from both sides of the issue.

“[A]ll of us, our hearts go out to those people who have been massacred and killed in this terrible bloodletting that’s been going on,” he added.

This story may be updated with additional video footage.

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has intercepted an order from an Iranian official instructing militants inIraq to attack U.S. interestsin Baghdad in the event the Obama administration launches a military strike in Syria, theWall Street Journal reportedon Thursday.

The American embassy in Baghdad was a likely target, according to unnamed U.S. officials quoted by the newspaper. The Journal said the officials did not describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence.

In addition, the State Department issued a warning on Thursday telling U.S. citizens to avoid all but "essential" travel to Iraq.

President Barack Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to a chemical weapons attackon civilians that the United States blames on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

The Journal reported that the Iranian message was intercepted in recent days and came from the head of the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force. The newspaper said the message went to Iranian-supported Shi'ite militia groups inIraq.

The Journal reported that the message informed Shi'ite groups to be prepared to respond with force after any U.S. military strike on Syria.

"Travel within Iraq remains dangerous given the security situation," according to the State Department's warning, which replaced an earlier one "to update information on security incidents and to remind U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns inIraq, including kidnapping and terrorist violence."

The department said that numerous insurgent groups, including al Qaeda's Iraq affiliate, remain active and "terrorist activity and sectarian violence persist in many areas of the country at levels unseen since 2008."

It added: "The ability of the embassy to respond to situations in which U.S. citizens face difficulty, including arrests, is extremely limited."

The State Department declined immediate comment. The CIA declined comment.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Reporting by Will Dunham and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Join the conversation about this story »

A Russian warship carrying "special cargo" will be dispatched toward Syria, a navy source said on Friday, as the Kremlin beefs up its presence in the region ahead of possible US strikes against the Damascus regime.

The large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov will on Friday leave the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it will head to Syria's coast, the Interfax news agency quoted a source from the Saint Petersburg-based central naval command as saying.

"The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean," the source said.

The source did not specify the nature of the cargo.

Russia has kept a constant presence in the eastern Mediterranean during the Syrian crisis.

In recent days Russia has made steps to beef up its naval grouping in the region.

The Russian destroyer Smetlivy will soon join the group in the region as well as the destroyer Nastoichivy, Interfax has said.

The anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev has already entered its zone of operation as the flagship of the current rotation of the Mediterranean grouping, a military source has told the news agency.

Already in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

They are expected to be joined by the large landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk and the missile cruiser Moskva. The reconnaissance ship Priazovye is also on its way to join the group.

The US already has a strong naval presence in the region and any US military action against Syria is widely expected to be launched from the sea.

Join the conversation about this story »

Secretary of State John Kerry took his case on Syria to liberal America on Thursday, appearing on "All In" with MSNBC's Chris Hayes and giving an interview to The Huffington Post's Howard Fineman. He also published an op-ed on The Huffington Post.

Hayes has been one of the left's most vehement critics of President Barack Obama's plan of limited airstrikes because of concerns about the legitimacy of the strikes and that it could lead to a larger-scale intervention. 

Hayes opened the interview by showing Kerry a video clip from 2012 that was brought to light by a recent New York Times story. It showed certain rebels brutally executing Syrian soldiers. 

"If the U.S. attacks Syria, do those men in those videos become, by definition, our allies?" Hayes said.

"No," Kerry replied. "In fact, I believe that those men in those videos are disadvantaged by an American response to the chemical weapons use because it, in fact, empowers the moderate opposition.

"We all know there are about 11 really bad opposition groups — so-called opposition.  They're not — they're fighting Assad. They are not part of the opposition that is being supported by our friends and ourselves.  That is a moderate opposition. They condemn what has happened today and they will — they are and we are busy separating the support we're getting from any possibility of that support going to these guys."

Kerry reiterated that Obama did not intend to engage the U.S. in Syria's civil war. He said that the limited strikes are about responding to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people, which the U.S. says killed 1,429 people, including 426 children. 

"I do not believe this is taking America to war," Kerry said. 

After the strikes, he said that the U.S. would continue its support of the "moderate opposition" groups. 

Kerry was also asked to respond to criticism by some of the voices in the George W. Bush administration who helped orchestrate the war in Iraq. He didn't have much patience for that criticism.

"It just doesn't make a difference to me, because they're so discredited by their own judgments, that it's hard to see that they have a judgment today that is relevant to this," Kerry said.

"I'll listen to people whose judgment I clearly trust and respect."

Here's the clip:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Join the conversation about this story »

It has been a week since President Barack Obama made the decision to take his plans for military action in Syria to a vote in Congress. And in that week, Congress has seemingly only progressed further away from approving those plans.

The whip counts in the House, particularly, don't look good for Obama. ThinkProgress has 217 House members at a firm "no" or leaning "no," which is right on the cusp of a failure already. The Washington Post puts the count of "no" votes at 205. The Hill has the most sober count of "no" House votes, at just 114. 

The feeling is clear: Though the Senate might approve its resolution for a strike, the House is potentially lining up to hand Obama a historic defeat on Syria.

This is no small problem for Obama, who likely has only a few days left to sell his plan after returning home from Russia and the G20 summit. Though he made a politically savvy decision to get Congress involved in the deliberations, there is plenty to suggest that Obama is staking much of his second-term credibility on the passage of the resolution and on his Syria strategy overall. 

These two paragraphs from the New York Times sum up what the White House thinks about the implications of the vote:

In private, Mr. Obama and his team see the votes as a guidepost for the rest of his presidency well beyond the immediate question of launching missiles at Syrian military targets. If Congress does not support a relatively modest action in response to a chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people in Syria, Obama advisers said, the president will not be able to count on support for virtually any use of force.

Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public’s will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.

What has gone so wrong? Forecasts were bullish on Tuesday, after House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor all jumped on board with Obama's plan.

But Boehner's office was quick to point out that it was Obama's "responsibility to make his case to the American people and their elected representatives." And so far, his administration "hasn't been doing a very good job" of that, according to an aide from a still-undecided Democratic House member.

In the strange politics of war, an unlikely coalition of liberal Democrats and increasingly libertarian Republicans have teamed up to be vocal in their opposition of engagement in another conflict. And undecided members — the moderate Republicans and the Democrats who usually vote with fellow Democrats and Obama — keep coming out of classified and unclassified briefings even less likely to support the plan.

Upon coming out of a classified briefing on Thursday, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said that she was opposed to a strike on Syria "now more than ever."

And the public is even further behind. Just 29% of Americans support military strikes on Syria, while 48% oppose, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Tuesday. Obama said that he will address the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday night. But how many people will one address really persuade?

Things can change, of course, particularly if Pelosi and Boehner go beyond making Syria a "conscience vote" and start whipping their members. But right now, one GOP aide said it has less than a 40% chance of passing the House.

“It’s definitely still an uphill battle, and is going to be a tough vote," another GOP aide said.

Watch highlights of President Obama's speech on Syria at the G20 below:

SEE ALSO: A clearly exasperated Obama makes the case for war

Join the conversation about this story »

An exasperated President Barack Obama tried time and time again to make the case for limited military intervention in Syria, as reports continue to cast a dark shadow on a resolution's chances of passing Congress.

"You know, over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children," Obama said, referring to U.S. evidence that says the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a chemical attack in Syria on Aug. 21. 

"This is not something we've fabricated. This is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action. As I said last night, I was elected to end wars and not start them. I've spent the last four and a half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people."

He sounded like a president who knew, at least, that he was on the cusp of a losing effort in persuading the American public and their representatives of his plan for action in Syria.

He took pains to cast Syrian intervention as "Not Iraq,""Not Afghanistan." Not Even Libya. He even acknowledged the unpopularity, saying the White House's "polling operation" is "pretty good." He gave no clear signs about whether he'd take action alone if Congress does vote down his plans.

Prefacing his next statement as one that wasn't meant to be an analogy to World War II, he analogized going ahead with intervention in Syria amid high unpopularity to coming to Britain's aid when London was bombed in 1940. 

He also cited the precedent of the U.S.'s delay in intervention in Rwanda, which President Bill Clinton has often said is his biggest regret from his presidency. 

"Imagine if Rwanda was going on right now and we asked, 'Should we intervene in Rwanda?'" Obama said. "Wouldn't go over very well."

Obama's comments also came as Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to support Syria in case of foreign military intervention. 

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prowling the skies of Pakistan and Yemen, armed drones are America's weapon of choice in its war against al Qaeda, but they are unlikely to play a major role in any U.S. strike against Syria, underscoring the limitations of unmanned aircraft.

Drones do not have the capability for air-to-air combat and would be vulnerable to Syria's defense system of surface-to-air missiles and radar which can track and shoot down warplanes, never mind slower-moving drones.

The Hellfire missiles generally carried by drones also lack the firepower of a cruise missile, which is considered the likely weapon for any limited U.S. strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces. Washington blames Assad's government for a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last month.

"It's well-known that the Syrian air defense system is robust," a U.S. defense official said. "Drones, like any other (aerial) platform, are vulnerable to integrated air defenses."

Used for protecting American troops in largely uncontested air space in Iraq and Afghanistan, and killing terrorism suspects in Pakistan and Yemen, drones can be remotely piloted from bases in the United States, avoiding risk to the lives of U.S. military personnel operating them.

U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen increased dramatically under President Barack Obama and the pilotless aerial vehicles have become a key part of the fight against al Qaeda. The United States has also used them over Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Iraq, and this year received approval to base drones in Niger.

However, the situation in Syria is not suited to the use of armed drones - not at least for the moment.

"If we don't control the air space then they (armed drones)are slow, they are noisy, they are very easy to shoot right out of the sky. They are really not all that useful when it comes to states like Syria," said Audrey Kurth Cronin, a public policy professor at George Mason University.

The armed drones generally carry Hellfire missiles which have a 20-pound warhead, although some of the larger models can drop a 500-pound bomb.

By contrast, Tomahawk missiles carry a much bigger punch with a 1,000-pound warhead and fly just below the speed of sound, making them less vulnerable to air defenses.

The United States has four guided missile destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea which can carry Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 miles.

SOME DRONES ON BORDER

If Syrian air defenses were hit in a U.S. strike, then drones could be used for surveillance and perhaps targeted strikes, although bringing them in at a later point could signal a more protracted engagement than Obama has suggested he is seeking in Syria, analysts said.

The U.S. Air Force has remotely piloted aircraft at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey but U.S. officials would not discuss their mission.

They have been used in the past for surveillance along the Turkish-Syrian border, but it is not clear whether they are currently conducting surveillance inside Syria.

The United States also operates the RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. The surveillance plane has a bat-wing, radar-evading shape, but its shortcomings were evident in 2011 when one crash-landed in Iran. Iran claimed to have taken control of the drone and forced it down, but U.S. officials denied that.

"We think of drones as a substitute for a stealth bomber or something - and they are not at all," said Daniel Byman, a Middle East security expert at the Brookings Institution.

While much has been made of Assad's network of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, some experts say the effectiveness of the air defenses may have been overplayed.

"One of the problems that everybody has is that nobody really knows what the Syrian system can do," said Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and David Brunnstrom)

Join the conversation about this story »

Listening to the testimony of administration officials on Wednesday during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing only further solidified my position to vote against a resolution authorizing the president to use military force in Syria.  I asked simple questions of the witnesses and expected straightforward answers.  Secretary Hagel and Secretary Kerry could not offer an explanation that made U.S. military intervention an acceptable option, nor could they define a clear and present danger to the U.S.

Secretary Hagel could not tell lawmakers who the U.S. could trust among the Syrian opposition, stating "that’s not my business to trust."  Like many Americans, I believe it is our duty as decision makers to be informed and confident when making choices – especially in those choices that could result in sending U.S. troops or money abroad.  It is no wonder Secretary Hagel isn’t in the business to trust when more players are added daily to the growing list of ‘Syrian opposition’—many of them jihadist, terrorists, known Al Qaeda affiliates, members of the Muslim Brotherhood and enemies of the U.S. and our allies.  To simplify, the Secretary of Defense was unable to tell us, after nearly three years of the Syrian Civil War, who the good guys are or if there are any at all.

To make matters worse, Secretary Kerry explicitly stated that the current proposal for unilateral U.S. military action is to "assert a principle."  It is not to halt the killing of innocent Syrians, it is not to end the evil and tyrannical rule of Assad, and it is not to protect the US or our allies from an imminent attack.

It is easier to be principled at others’ expense. 

While both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel repeatedly stressed that the Senate-passed resolution excluded U.S. troops from going into Syria, the resolution is littered with loopholes and exceptions.  Prohibiting the use of combat troops does not preclude U.S. military personnel from being sent to Syria for training or covert purposes.  

Targeted strikes will lead to Americans in Syria, and that action will likely result in loss of life.  No one – not the president, not his administration officials, not Members of Congress, not our allies in the region – knows the full reach of implications if we authorize the president’s request. 

Secretary Hagel could not articulate the cost of this mission any more than stating it would be in the tens of millions.  We do not know if targeted strikes will do anything to spare innocent lives and we do not know who we can trust amongst the Syrian opposition.  An unknown number of factions are amongst the opposition forces - factions who want to kill Assad and assume power, factions who want to kill Americans and factions who want to kill each other.  At this point, Syria is worse than the wild west and we have no idea who will be left standing when the dust settles.

The Obama Administration would like the American public to think this military strike will serve as a deterrent.  Nevertheless, it chose to ignore the fact that we went into Iraq to prevent the future use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.  If dictatorships in countries like Syria and Iran were not deterred ten years ago, why would this military strike be any different?

At this juncture in Syria's Civil War, it is clear that Assad's fortune and power will eventually come to an end, and when it does, he will retaliate like a wounded animal – the death throes of a once vicious animal that knows the end is near.

We are not at odds with rationally-minded people; we are at odds with extremists who do not care about the ramifications of their actions.

This is Syria’s Civil War.  Violence has not escaped Syria’s borders and it is not our role to serve as the world’s policeman.  At this time and given all the facts, the administration has failed to make a case with a reasonable degree of certainty to responsibly call for military action.

Tom Marino has been the U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district since 2011. He is a member of the Republican Party and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Join the conversation about this story »

As President Barack Obama tries to rally the world around a proposed attack on Syria, Arab Christian leaders have come out as strongly opposed, worried an attack could create a backlash against their communities.

Join the conversation about this story »

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) sent out a fundraising email on Friday, asking for donations based on his high-profile switch on Thursday that put him firmly on the side against intervening in Syria.

Carol Danko, a Grimm spokeswoman, blamed the fundraising email on an inadvertent, automatic inclusion by a vendor. She did not respond to inquiries about the name of the vendor. 

"It was a very unfortunate error and the congressman is fuming about it," Danko said. 

"The email was intended to be a message to supporters informing them of the congressman's withdrawal of support for a strike on Syria," she added in a statement. "The dollar ask was included automatically by the vendor, and was never approved by the congressman. He is furious over this inappropriate inclusion and has taken appropriate actions to ensure that this careless error never happens again."

The five-paragraph email, which was first noticed by BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray, contains two paragraphs that are comprised entirely of donation requests. 

Here's the full text of the email:

Today, I decided to withdraw my support from President Obama’s proposal for a military strike against Syria. I have heard from many of you in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and it is clear to me that their is strong opposition to the strike. As your voice in Washington, I will continue to listen and take a stand for you.

Will you stand with me in opposing President Obama’s plan with a donation of $25 or more right now?

When President Obama first announced his plan for strikes against the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, my first reaction as a Marine combat veteran was to support immediate, targeted strikes. I now believe that the opportunity for such action has passed.

President Obama has failed to show strength at this critical moment in time. While the debate in Congress continues, our nation’s credibility grows weaker and weaker. After much deliberation and prayer, I have decided to withdraw my support. I do not feel that our country has enough to gain by moving forward with this attack.

Stand with me today with a donation of $25 or more to strongly oppose military action in Syria.

Thank you for your support,

Michael Grimm

Grimm said in a statement on Thursday that he would no longer support President Barack Obama's plan to launch limited military strikes in Syria — saying that Obama should have acted unilaterally and without Congress' approval. 

"Now that the Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets, I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own," Grimm said.

Grimm's fundraising page has been removed, but a cached version still exists:

SEE ALSO: The vote on Syria is shaping up to be a full-fledged disaster for Obama

Join the conversation about this story »

General Salmin Idris, the leader of the Free Syria Army, called Vladimir Putin a terrorist today after the Russian president said that allegations of a August 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus was a "provocation" by Syrian rebels.

"President Putin is lying," Gen. Idriss told Fox News. "He knows exactly that the regime is killing our citizens ... and is using Russian weapons and ammunition, tanks, [and] Scud missiles to destroy all the liberated areas. This man, President Putin, is a terrorist. And he is trying now to deceive the international community."

The actions of both men provide context to the controversial statements.

Russia has staunchly backed Assad in numerous ways during the 29-month conflict, and Putin has denied each reported chemical attack or blamed them on the rebels.

Idris has said that the FSA's top priority is getting weapons for the West as well as "stopping the aerial bombardment but also the importation of weapons and military personnel from Russia and Iran." 

That is precisely what a U.S. strike could accomplish, which is one reason why Putin is working to prevent it.

Idriss has also been overseeing the Syrian opposition's "southern strategy," which involves bolstering Western-vetted troops with Saudi weapons around Damascus as reported by Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weiss.

Weiss notes that the towns integral to this FSA buildup "are located in Eastern Ghouta district," which was gassed on August 21 and has been gassed before.

Here's the video:

SEE ALSO: The 3 Reasons Russia Backs Assad So Staunchly

Join the conversation about this story »

British scientists have confirmed that the nerve agent used in the August 21 gas attacks in Syria was sarin. However, their U.S. and other European counterparts are also carrying out tests to rule out a possibility of false positives.

Chemicals similar to sarin, such as soman or VX, exist and produce similar side effects, so additional testing must be done to clearly identify the substance. Each chemical has a unique pattern of molecular breakdown, which for sarin is 99-125-81.

Watch below an animation showing how scientists test and identify sarin.

Produced by Reuters

SEE ALSO: Use Pivot Tables In Excel To Organize Confusing Raw Data In Seconds

Follow Us: On YouTube

Join the conversation about this story »